Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL By Order

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question —[23 May] —That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 6 July.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL

BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL

(CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL

Orders for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 6 July.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 6 July.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order read for resuming debate on Question— [28 June] —That the Bill be now considered.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 6 July.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HAYLE HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL [Lords]

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 July.

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL

Ordered,
That the Committee on the King's Cross Railways Bill have leave to visit and inspect the areas affected by the proposed works, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Fur Farming

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last discussed with representatives of the Council of Europe the deliberations of that body on fur farming.

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to raise in the EC Council of Ministers the issue of fur farming and regulations relating thereto.

Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's statement on mink and fox farming.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): I discussed the Council of Europe recommendations with my officials before the last meeting in April and asked them to take account of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recent statement. Until this work is complete, there would be little point in raising the matter in the Council of Ministers. In the meantime, I have asked the state veterinary service to continue its monitoring of fur farms, as recommended by the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

Dr. Howells: Will the Minister put to the Council of Europe the case for phasing out fur farms, as it is clear from a wide range of evidence that fur farms do not and cannot meet the basic requirements of farm animal welfare?

Mr. Thompson: The Farm Animal Welfare Council did not recommend that I should ban fur farms. The Council of Europe is a good forum in which to discuss fur farming. The British are well down the league of people who farm for fur. The Danes farm 10 million animals, the Swedes 2 million, the Dutch 1·5 million and the French 500,000, compared with 250,000 in the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister acknowledge that there has not been proper research into fur farming? Will he instruct his officials not to support any recommendations until there has been research into this sort of farming? Will he undertake to publish that research? Fur farming worries many people. The animals are in great distress and often self-mutilate. This is a very serious issue.

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Lady is right to be worried. About 25 per cent. of fur produced in the United Kingdom comes from Calderdale. We have asked the Farm Animal Welfare Council to investigate fur farming. The council always publishes its conclusions in full. We in no way restrain the council in who it calls to give evidence, nor in any way do we restrict what it does with that evidence afterwards.

Ms. Primarolo: What action will the Minister take on the farming of arctic foxes in breach of the Berne convention, to which we are signatory? Farming animals


for their fur is abhorrent. We should stick clearly to the conventions that we have signed. What steps will the hon. Gentleman take to reinforce our commitment to the Berne convention?

Mr. Thompson: We shall follow the guidelines of the Council of Europe and those laid down by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. There seems to be much more emotion about the farming of foxes than about the farming of mink, although the hon. Lady probably feels as emotional about both. We are considering all aspects, and we undertake to publish all our research.

Mr. Jessel: Has my hon. Friend noticed that some of those who complain about fur farming wear leather shoes?

Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend is right. Most people wear leather shoes. Hon. Members are saying that to rear an animal purely for one purpose, but not for meat, is abhorrent. The Government well understand that point, but I am not undertaking to restrict mink farming. I pledge that we shall ensure that mink farming observes the most hygienic and proper codes. The Fur Breeders Association of Great Britain is to be commended for its code of practice, which its members follow closely.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he accepts the 1984 ruling of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that animals in fur farms are semi-domesticated, not wild? Will he further confirm that before he returns to the Council of Ministers for more discussions, and on receipt of recommendations from his officials when they have completed their work, he will discuss the matter with fur farmers' representatives before reaching any conclusions?

Mr. Thompson: I often meet the Farm Animal Welfare Council, the RSPCA, fur farmers and others. My hon. Friend rightly said that animals in fur farms are semi-domesticated, which is why it is abhorrent for people to release them into the wild. I am sure that no hon. Member agrees with that practice, which in the past has destroyed the ecology of valleys. I shall consult the relevant bodies before taking further steps.

Irradiated Food

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to discuss food irradiation with other EC Agriculture Ministers.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I expect discussions on the draft directive on food irradiation to start later this year.

Mr. Griffiths: Has the Minister had an opportunity to study the report of the Consumers Association on food irradiation in this month's "Which?", which warns that food irradiation removes nutrients from food but increases the likelihood of toxins and radiolytic products being left in it? Does he agree that we need firm Government action to improve standards throughout the food chain and not irradiation?

Mr. MacGregor: On the latter point, over the past few months we have taken a number of steps, where necessary, to deal with food safety and standards throughout the food chain. One should not take decisions on food

irradiation on the ground that it will solve all food safety problems. Food irradiation has a part, but only a part, to play in the total process of dealing with food safety. It is right to give consumers and manufacturers freedom of choice on that process, given the beneficial effects that it can have for some food products. As to the report of the Consumers Association, food irradiation has been studied by more scientists than almost every other food process. It has no greater effect on nutrition than the other processes through which food goes, including cooking. Food irradiation is neutral in its effect on toxins.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to the scare stories put forward by the Opposition, food irradiation cannot by some extraordinary miracle turn bad food good? It leaves bad food bad, but gives good food a longer shelf life, thereby increasing the housewife's freedom of choice.

Mr. MacGregor: As so often on these matters, my hon. Friend talks good sense. I agree with everything that she said.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister recall telling the House last week that if he introduced irradiation he would ensure that the public were made aware of whether food had been irradiated? As the majority of irradiated food will be sold in restaurants, will he give a categorical guarantee that restaurants will be required to display a notice in a prominent position stating that they sell irradiated food? Alternatively, it should be clearly stated on the menu that they are selling irradiated food.

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it will be some time before the ban on food irradiation in this country can be lifted.

Mr. Home Robertson: Answer the question.

Mr. MacGregor: I am coming to the point. This is relevant. It will be some time before the ban is lifted. We will wish to consult and take decisions on a range of details including precisely what is included on labels. The point made by the hon. Gentleman is one of those details. Precisely how we ensure that the consumer knows that food in restaurants has been irradiated will be a matter for detailed consultation and consideration. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I firmly believe that consumers must have informed freedom of choice. His point will be dealt with.

Mr. David Martin: When was food irradiation first patented? How much scientific evidence has been accumulated since then?

Mr. MacGregor: From memory, I think that the first food irradiation process was permitted in 1921.

Dr. Moonie: The Minister remembers that, does he?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not have to be alive to remember everything that I have read. From my historical education, I can remember other things.
For more than 40 years food irradiation has been studied by scientists. Provided that the proper control framework is operated and the right levels are used, the safety aspects have been fully approved by scientists internationally in many scientific bodies and by many organisations that have considered food irradiation, including the advisory committee in this country.

Forestry

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates his Department makes of future demand for nursery-grown trees for commercial forestry in England and Wales.

Mr. MacGregor: The Forestry Commission estimates its own needs which it meets largely from its own nurseries, while the horticultural trade makes separate assessments of the likely demand from the private forestry sector. The Horticultural Trades Association meets the commission periodically to discuss likely planting trends.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware of the research undertaken at the university of Suffolk which has shown unacceptably high levels of lead in food crops grown adjacent to motorways? Would it make more sense in terms of protecting public health, enhancing the environment and giving a much-needed boost to the forestry industry if corridors of land adjacent to motorways could be taken out of agricultural production and given over to forestry?

Mr. MacGregor: That is a much wider question than the main question before us. I am aware of some of the research, although I have not had the opportunity to study it. I would have to know the basis of the research and be sure of it before I acted on it. Moving from that to the solution that the hon. Gentleman has suggested is a very different matter and raises much wider considerations. I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. Lord: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the serious effects of the tax change in the 1988 Budget on the supply of nursery trees. He will know that millions of those trees have been burnt this year because they were not required. He will also know that young trees cannot be kept indefinitely and that when they are nearly three years old they must be disposed of if not required. I appreciate that this may be difficult to organise, but will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that supply and demand in this difficult area are kept in reasonable balance so that we can plant the trees which we need to plant and so that nursery businesses do not suffer such shocks in the future?

Mr. MacGregor: The Forestry Commission makes its own estimates of its demand and, on the whole, it supplies its own trees. My hon. Friend must recognise that it is much more difficult to do that in the private sector when the demand involves thousands of landowners and others who may want to decide which trees to plant. It is difficult for the Government to make that kind of estimate. I am aware of the immediate downturn in planting following last year's Budget. That always happens when there are major changes in the way in which regimes are financed. However, there has been a general welcome for the change from tax reliefs to grants. I hope that there will be a pick-up following the period of uncertainty—the time that people must take to assess the new regime. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know of the response in the first eight months to the farm woodlands scheme, which involves the planting of 10 million new trees in the next three years, many of which are broadleaf trees. I am sure that he will have noticed also that, in the first 10 months of the scheme, applications under the woodland grant scheme have been encouraging, with applications for nearly 36,000 hectares.

Mr. Mallon: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern among officials in the North of Ireland about the possible sale of some public forests into private hands? Does he agree that, because of the small acreage of forests in the North of Ireland, that would be to the detriment of a service that has made a tremendous input to the industry? Will he have discussions with his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that those fears are dispelled as soon as possible?

Mr. MacGregor: I have no responsibility for forestry matters in Northern Ireland, but I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, over the past eight years, disposals have been extremely successful in dealing with the rationalisation of the public estate. I strongly support the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 16 June about the programme for the next 10 years. It gives a considerable and timely boost to the private forestry sector and enables the commission's estate to be further rationalised.

Mr. Greg Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members warmly welcome the farm woodlands scheme? He has mentioned the number of trees being planted. Will any of them be oaks and, if so, how many?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. Farmers' responses to the scheme in the early months of its introduction have been extremely encouraging. It is noticeable how many applications have been received for farmland in lowland areas, most notably perhaps in East Anglia, which is leading the way. I am particularly pleased to note that about 2 million oak trees are involved in the overall figures.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on European forestry policy and its impact on English forestry.

Mr. MacGregor: There is no common forestry policy as such. However, the Council of Agriculture Ministers recently agreed a package of voluntary measures making up a forestry action programme. The main effect of this programme from the United Kingdom's point of view is that we shall be able to obtain some reimbursement of our expenditure on the afforestation of agricultural land.

Mr. Lloyd: The Minister admitted that forestry nurseymen have had a hard time since last year's changes in forestry policy. Will he make sure that some of the European money from the forestry package is devoted to easing forestry nurserymen's problems? The Minister responsible refused to meet the nurserymen. Will the Minister reverse the decision, with a view to meeting the nurserymen to discuss how the money could be used to assist their problems?

Mr. MacGregor: It is important to understand what the European forestry programme does. We were successful in achieving our objectives in the negotiations. One of them was to ensure that, in future, the schemes that we have been pioneering in this country will be eligible for some European funding. Depending on the response to our current schemes, about £6 million is likely to come from the European Community for the kind of schemes that we


are introducing. It will depend on the uptake of the schemes, and nurserymen will obviously have to take that into account.

Mr. John Greenway: With regard to the uptake of the schemes, how many hectares are likely to be planted under existing applications for the farm woodlands grant? What interest has been shown by tenants and what arrangements can be made to ensure that they can profit from this excellent arrangement?

Mr. MacGregor: For the first eight months, the figure is about 6,200 hectares. I have obviously been keen for opportunities to be extended to tenants. The schemes are long term, so tenants need to secure their landlords' agreement. I am pleased to say that, so far, about 15 per cent. of applications have been granted to tenants. That is not far short of the total number of tenanted holdings. It appears that there is a reasonable response by landlords to tenants.

Mr. Geraint Howells: After listening to the Minister's reply, is it right for me to assume that his friends in Europe are unwilling to give money to the public sector—the Forestry Commission—in this country?

Mr. MacGregor: The main schemes in the forestry programme about which we were talking do not affect the Forestry Commission or public authorities.

Mr. Home Robertson: Now that the crisis in woodland nurseries has been referred to by hon. Members from both sides of the House, does the Minister accept that it is proof positive that forestry speculators do not give a damn about the long-term benefit and welfare of Britain's woodlands, and that all they ever wanted was access to a lucrative tax dodge? Will he further accept that the Forestry Commission has by far the best record of public accountability and giving the public access to British woodland? Therefore, will he repudiate the proposals recently made by the Secretary of State for Scotland to force the Forestry Commission to privatise a further 250,000 acres of our forests, so putting even more woodlands behind closed gates?

Mr. MacGregor: On the second question, the hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening. I have already warmly supported the comments made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in answer to a previous question, and I do so again. My right hon. and learned Friend also made it clear that public access is a matter that we are considering further in relation to the programme over the next 10 years.
On the first question, I repeat that when the system of taxes or grants is changed, there is always a period during which people will wish to reflect before they make a decision about future planning. There was an even sharper decline in planting when the capital transfer tax was introduced by the Labour Government in the 1970s. The hon. Gentleman and his party supported the main thrust of the changes made last year, so I am not at all clear exactly what he is complaining about.

Farm Livestock (Slaughtering)

Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department will consider introducing legislation to ensure that farm livestock are slaughtered as close to the farm of origin as possible.

Mr. Donald Thompson: No, Sir. There are already extensive controls protecting the welfare of animals during transport.

Mr. Smith: Bearing in mind the fact that there has been a huge increase in the export of livestock to the continent for slaughter, that there are proposals to reduce the number of stops for water and food—which means that livestock can be in transit for up to 24 hours or more, which is particularly cruel and unnecessary—and that there are good economic benefits to the farming community and slaughtering industries in encouraging domestic slaughter, may I ask the Minister to consider these arguments when he and his colleagues examine livestock transport arrangements?

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman does well to mention this matter, especially in relation to Welsh sheep which are exported throughout the continent, both dead and alive. I always consult my colleagues about the transport of animals. The controls laid down in the United Kingdom are, in some respects, even more stringent than those broadly laid down by the EC. All animals leaving this country have to be rested for at least 10 hours on this side of the water in approved lairages.

Mr. Ron Davies: At the moment.

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman says "at the moment". I understood that the purport of the question was that we should keep a watch on Europe where the distances involved are much greater. Animals emanating from this country are at an advantage, not a disadvantage.

Mr. Knapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot have it both ways? If more meat is to be slaughtered in big, modern abattoirs which are licensed to export meat to other countries, it logically follows that less meat will be slaughtered close to the farm gate.

Mr. Thompson: That is a good point which I fully understand and shall explain to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen because obviously they do not. They have been pressing for licensed abbatoirs—export abattoirs—which, of necessity, will be bigger and more efficient, but will also have to be further away from the farm. Animals will have to be taken to those export-approved slaughterhouses. There is a good trade in live animals abroad because once a live animal is abroad it can be killed as a French or German animal would be killed. That is an attraction to the countries that import our animals. We take a great deal of trouble to ensure that those animals are taken abroad in the best possible way and that their welfare is safeguarded.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister confirm that there has been a steady increase in the number of sheep exported live? Surely it is much kinder to slaughter sheep in this country rather than abroad, and also much better for British jobs.

Mr. Thompson: There has been an increase in the amount of sheepmeat going abroad, both dead and alive,


and the number of live exports has increased in proportion with that. If the sheep are properly conducted, housed, lairaged and transported, they travel very well.

Food Safety

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent measures he has taken to improve food safety in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: I have recently introduced several measures at all stages in the food chain, from production of animal feed right through to storage and handling of food in the home.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the major British food firms lead the world in safety standards? Does he also agree that the difference between the Government and the Opposition in this regard is that whereas my right hon. Friend, with his scientific advisers, works closely with those firms to establish new standards and research priorities, the Opposition listen to spurious advice and call for inefficiently used local authority environmental health officers?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree that our food industry has a very good record, in both range and quality of provision and in food safety. I well know how much the industry is investing in new plant and facilities to enable it constantly to improve food safety. After all, unless it does so it will not continue to expand and sell its products, both at home and in the export market, and its export record shows how successful it has been.
I also agree that it is extremely important for Government action to be based on the best available scientific advice. We have many scientists from all disciplines, both independent and in the Ministry, to advise us and maintain constant surveillance. It is on that basis that we are able to act promptly to protect the consumer.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister accept that there is a close connection between food hygiene—and food safety—and preparation? Is he aware that in Aberdeen there is great concern at the decision announced yesterday to go ahead with the cut in the research budget at the Torry research station? When the Minister saw a deputation of Members of Parliament the day before, we put it to him that the research being done in collaboration with the EEC was under threat, and he promised to consider the matter. Has he done so, and if so, what decision has he reached?

Mr. MacGregor: It is important to remember that Torry's research, and the research that the Government have said from the outset that they will not continue to fund, is of a commercial nature, close to the development end—near-market research that is appropriate for commercial exploitation if companies wish to take up the opportunity. That is precisely the kind of research which we feel should be funded by the industry. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has had extensive discussions with the industry, and I regret to say that the industry does not wish to fund those particular projects. As for the proposed European Community projects, my hon. Friend is currently considering them and will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the latest report by health inspectors on food being taken out of the country by air? The report said that one in four aircraft meals was dangerous to passengers. Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter? Could not the food be subjected to irradiation? Surely the problem needs more scrutiny. Like many of my colleagues, I travel frequently in aircraft.

Mr. MacGregor: I suspect that at present I travel in aircraft as much as anyone, as I spend so much of my time negotiating beyond these shores. I am aware of some of the recent research reports. Indeed, we debated the subject in the House last Wednesday, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, whose primary responsibility it is, said that he was examining the situation closely to see whether any action was required from him.
If and when the ban on irradiation is lifted—obviously, such action will require parliamentary approval—it will apply only to products for which it is appropriate. It will then be for the industry involved—in this case, the airline —and for consumers themselves to decide whether they wish to make use of irradiated food.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister realise that the Labour party's policy to create an independent food standards agency has now been endorsed by the National Consumer Council and the Institute of Trading Standards Administration? Given the growing concern that exists about the quality and wholesomeness of food that is available to the British consumer, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this would be an ideal opportunity for him to set to one side his political interests and include our proposal for an independent agency in the food Bill which he is currently considering?

Mr. MacGregor: I have had a quick look at the National Consumer Council report and obviously I shall wish to read it further. From that quick look, it seems to me that there are criticisms, as I know from when I have been to the United States, of the way in which that country organises these matters. There are criticisms of the way in which the Food and Drug Administration has operated, just as there are criticisms in other countries. Every country must decide how it wishes to deal with food safety, and there is no perfect answer. It is interesting to note, however, that the majority of countries, certainly in the European Community, organise these matters in the way that we do. I understand that the paper in question has been produced as a consultative document. I have no doubt that there will be much discussion about the pros and cons, and there are clearly a number of cons listed in the document in that respect.

Mr. Jack: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Ministry will continue to take a strong line in rebutting spurious and unscientifically sponsored claims about food safety, such as the recent comments made about the chemical Alar?

Mr. MacGregor: It is extremely important that scientific advice and evidence, not emotion and scary headlines, are the guide in these matters from the point of view of Government action. It is important for all parties in the House not to respond to immediate pressures from interest groups and scare stories but to consider the evidence and listen to responsible scientists. That is what


I do and on that basis we asked our advisory committee recently to look again at the evidence on Alar. The committee made a clear recommendation and we have stuck with that.

Farm Animals

Mr. John Hughes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has responded to the call from Compassion in World Farming for farm animals to be accorded the status of sentient animals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Donald Thompson: I have told Compassion in World Farming that the Government see no need to press for a change in the status of farm animals under European law because the treaty of Rome already provides all the necessary powers to protect the welfare of farm animals.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the conditions in which many animals travel when they are exported are nothing short of barbaric, causing the animals a great deal of unnecessary suffering? If the new Common Market transport regulations fail to eliminate that suffering, what steps will he take to press for improved standards?

Mr. Thompson: I do not agree that animals being transported in and from the United Kingdom are caused suffering anywhere near the description that the hon. Gentleman gave. This is the fifth question about animal welfare today, and it is a credit to the House that we take the matter so seriously. I have before me our clear statement of policy detailing how we expect animals to be carried when they travel in this country and to other countries. We shall press the European Commission to maintain rigorously the standards that we have set and which seem to be operating successfully in this country.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will the Minister accept that lofty strictures about the treatment of farm animals are an insult to the vast majority of British farmers, who look after their livestock in a humane fashion and have quite enough to do making a living from the land without interference from politically motivated animal rights protestors?

Mr. Thompson: I agree with my hon. Friend that the vast majority of our farmers deal with their farming business and the welfare of their animals in an exemplary way. In Parliament, however, we are concerned with the villain in all sorts of ways and we cannot tolerate villainy in regard to animals.

Food (Contamination)

Dr. Moonie: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of research into microbiological contamination of food.

Mr. MacGregor: My Department is firmly committed to providing support for food safety research, on which substantial resources are already being spent. For example, I announced earlier this year that my Department plans to spend £1 million annually on new research on salmonella in poultry and £4·5 million over the next five years on a new strategic research initiative designed to predict the growth of food poisoning organisms in a wide variety of food environments and processes.

Dr. Moonie: What specific steps will the Minister take to monitor the possible adverse effects of the continuing consumption of raw milk?

Mr. MacGregor: Where any cases of food poisoning arise from that source, as from any other, we have the evidence put to us and we shall be monitoring it.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Mr. Pike: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will include a statement on the current incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Mr. MacGregor: On average, about 150 suspect cases of BSE are being reported each week.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister confirm that cases of BSE have been reported in every county in England and Wales? Would it not be sensible, therefore, to introduce compulsory inspection by vets at slaughterhouses now rather than wait to be compelled to do so by the EEC in 1991?

Mr. MacGregor: The actions that we have properly taken—first, from the moment when we knew and could diagnose what the disease was, secondly from the moment when we thought that we knew with a fair degree of certainty what the source was, and finally from the report of the Southwood committee—are designed fully to deal with this problem and to protect the consumer. The Southwood report said that the risk to human health was extremely remote, but to be absolutely sure we have taken steps, including the one that I recently announced, to make sure that infected material does not enter the food chain. I think that that is the right way to tackle the matter.

Dr. David Clark: The Minister has acknowledged that the Southwood report admits the possibility, albeit remote, that this terrible disease could be transmitted to humans. To ensure that there is no temptation for farmers to send dubious animals to market, will the Government stop shilly-shallying and offer farmers 100 per cent. compensation for BSE-infected animals sent to slaughter?

Mr. MacGregor: It appears that there is still a great deal of misunderstanding about the compensation that we are offering. Such animals are not worth very much in the market, but the compensation is 50 per cent. of the original market value, which is well above what they would now be worth. The other important point is that the action that I have recently announced—to deal with susceptible offals and ensure that they do not enter the food chain—deals with this problem.

Nitrates

Mr. Cran: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in response to his consultation document "Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme".

Mr. MacGregor: The closing date for responses to the nitrate consultation document is 30 June. It has therefore not yet been possible to assess all the responses because that date has not been reached. Replies are still being received and assessed.

Mr. Cran: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on a consultative document that is undoubtedly in the


public interest and illustrates how environmentally aware the Government are. As my right hon. Friend moves towards his conclusions, will he consider consulting farmers about compensation in those cases in which restrictions go beyond good farming practice?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's praise. It is not necessary to consult farmers on that point because we have already announced that there will be compensation for restrictions that go beyond good agricultural practice. We shall be consulting farmers on the pilot areas, which I hope to announce in the autumn. It will be then that we shall begin to get the full scheme into operation.

Whaling

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to discuss with other European Community Fisheries Ministers the recommendations made at the 41st annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Donald Thompson: The European Community does not have competence on whaling matters as such, but those members with interests in whaling are members of the International Whaling Commission and we consult them in that forum. At the recent annual meeting of the commission, resolutions were passed calling upon Japan, Norway and Iceland to reconsider their whaling research plans, and Japan's request for its small coastal whaling boats to take 320 minke whales was rejected. I welcome those decisions.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that I have switched my interest from my furry friends to those massive whatever they are? Is the Minister aware that Japan will kill 400 whales this year and Iceland 68 and does he accept the sham that that killing is for "research"? When will there be sanctuary for these beautiful beasts? Come on, Minister, and let us know.

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman deserves an answer. We were instrumental in persuading Iceland not to take 10 sei whales next year and we reduced the number of whales to be taken by the Japanese to 320. We are not interested in spurious scientific whaling. We shall continue to press our case and the case for the whale.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Prime Minister recall that only a few years ago when the Wang Corporation announced that it was bringing 700 jobs to Scotland, she tried to take much of the credit for it personally, hailing it as splendid news on her birthday and a shot in the arm for Scotland?

If the Minister is to avoid shooting herself in the foot with £4 million of taxpayers' money being lost and, more seriously, shooting down the jobs of 240 Scottish workers, will she renew her personal interest in the case and demand an urgent meeting with company representatives with a view to discussing every possible means of Government intervention to stop the closure and to keep the jobs in Scotland where more than 250,000 people are still unemployed?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland answered a private notice question on Tuesday about the closure. The closure comes as a shock because it is a comparatively new factory. The company has come across great market difficulties in selling its product and it has to rationalise. The company made it clear in the closure notice that the work force in Scotland has performed excellently. It also made it clear that it would do everything possible to assist in selling the factory to another occupant perhaps, to have as many jobs continuing there as possible. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland pointed out that in 1982 we were under the Labour system of grants. We had not changed the system then, so we are not in a position to demand part of the grant back. The system of grants was changed in 1984. Had the grant been given later, we would have been in a position to get some of it back.

Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend been informed of the situation in the National Union of Railwaymen, where delegates attending the conference about the strike are paid £70 per day, plus expenses, while the ordinary railwaymen who are on strike are paid £2 per day? Does that not show the cynicism within that organisation, with no care for the workers and even less care for the travellers?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is utterly deplorable —the inconvenience to which the travelling public are being put by the strikes. Many people are making splendid efforts to get to work because they will not be put off by such strikes. The double tragedy is that British Rail is virtually advertising, "We will not get you to your destination." That is what a strike means for passengers and freight. More people will make other arrangements to get to work and more manufacturers will make other arrangements to transport their freight. It is a double tragedy of gross inconvenience for the public and for the future of British Rail.

Mr. Wray: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that 1 gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wray: Is the Prime Minister aware that of the 10 million pensioners in Britain, 6 million are living below the poverty line? Does she realise that since 1986, when pensioners had their first increase, they have had increases of 40p, 85p and £1·65p, which amounts to less than £3 in three years? Is she also aware that thousands of pensioners are losing out because of Government guidelines which mean that if their date of birth falls after the first pay day they will lose a week's pension?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, under this Government the basic pension has been inflation-proof, whereas the Labour Government were unable to stick to their promise to keep the pension in line with prices because when in 1976 prices went up by 21·5 per cent. the pension went up by only 15 per cent.

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the light of the present rail strikes we should be moving towards privatisation of the rail network and the removal of legal immunities in relation to strike action, particularly in public monopoly services? My right hon. Friend has already condemned the National Union of Railwaymen for holding the travelling public to ransom. Can she give any explanation for the failure of the Leader of the Opposition to condemn the NUR?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will condemn the strike, which has given so much inconvenience to thousands of citizens, thousands of trade unionists and thousands of other people who seek conscientiously to get to work to carry out their duties. Privatisation is not an effective response to the situation. It is justified on its own as a policy. When the buses were on strike we saw that the privatised buses still ran. We are not yet ready to bring forward proposals for the privatisation of British Rail, which would require careful preparation, but I shall take my hon. Friend's comments on board. Privatised services are less likely to strike than public ones.

Mr. Ashdown: Has the Prime Minister noticed that last week President Gorbachev established for the Soviet Parliament just that system of scrutiny over the KGB which she refused this Parliament in relation to our secret services? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Such interruptions take up a great deal of time, which is to no one's benefit.

Mr. Ashdown: If such scrutiny is good enough for the Soviet Parliament, why is it regarded as a dangerous over-extension of democracy here?

The Prime Minister: I had no idea that the right hon. Gentleman was so utterly naive. I shall take such comments from that direction with a sackful of salt.

Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend mark the contrast between the nobility of character and patriotism of the late Airey Neave and the squalid opportunism of his critics?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and I gladly pay tribute to the late Airey Neave for his patriotism, his sense of duty, and his honour. The loss of his life was a tragedy for this country.

Dr. Reid: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Reid: Will the Prime Minister confirm the information that I have obtained from the Library that a

63-year-old pensioner on a net income of £70·01p per week living in Southwark will pay exactly the same poll tax as a 63-year-old professional lady earning £1,000 per week who is married to a millionaire and living in Dulwich? Why does the right hon. Lady so strongly support such an unfair tax?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the community charge meets about 25 per cent. of local government expenditure. About another 25 per cent. is met by the business tax, and the remaining 50 per cent. is met by the taxpayer. Higher-rate taxpayers will, of course, contribute very much more to local authority expenditure than those paying a lesser rate.

Miss Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Miss Nicholson: In her busy day, has my right hon. Friend had time to reflect on the current excellent provision of health care and, in particular, on the major investment in hospital building projects, 401 of which have been completed since 1979 at a cost of more than £1 milion per project, with a further 144 projects nearing completion? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that that excellent momentum will be continued?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend's comments. Labour's policies would cut expenditure on hospital building, whereas ours have greatly increased it. Our policy is one of trying to improve the Health Service in places where it was not so good, by constructing excellent new hospitals. A number of right hon. and hon. Members who represent London constituencies have had to stand back while that was done elsewhere, but we look forward to having new hospitals, too, under a Conservative Government.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister explain why Britain's inflation rate is nearly twice the European average?

The Prime Minister: It is at about the same level to which the last Labour Government would have loved to keep it down.

Mr. Kinnock: When does the Prime Minister expect Britain's inflation rate to fall to the European average?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get the inflation rate down, and it will come down over the rest of the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall saying that Britain's rate of inflation started to rise because we were following the deutschmark? During her recent visit to Madrid, did she not agree that her objective was to return to shadowing the deutschmark?

The Prime Minister: No, not shadowing the deutschmark, but joining the exchange rate mechanism when certain conditions are fulfilled. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that Labour holds the record for inflation this century? Under Labour, it reached 27 per cent.—more than one quarter of the value of the pound —in one year. That was Labour's record when the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of this House.

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree with others that the standard of English in this country and the whole education of our children must be improved? Should not everyone support the Government's important reforms, which are designed to achieve that objective?

The Prime Minister: It is important that the standard of both English teaching and English education should be improved. We have set out specific curricular demands and attainment tests for that purpose. They will shortly be introduced in primary schools and then in secondary schools,to the great benefit of the children of this country.

Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Madden: Will the Prime Minister take urgent action today to help industry in Yorkshire? Will she ask Sir David Alliance, the chairman of Coats Viyella to keep open CV Carpets in Batley, which is now threatened with closure and the loss of 140 jobs? Will she also have a word with her hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), who is a director of Eversure Curtains where the staff are currently on strke in pursuit of trade union recognition? Will she urge him to grant recognition to that trade union and also to do something about increasing the wages of the machinists whom he employs, who are currently paid £61 for a 38-hour week?

The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's first question, no—closures are inevitably a matter for commercial judgment. [Interruption.] Yes, of course they are. The hon. Gentleman should be the first to recognise that Alliance Coats Viyella has done a very great deal to bring the textile industry right up to the latest best possible standards, both in investment and in design. We owe a great deal to it. It would be very good if some of those who criticise industry started up something themselves and made it succeed.

European Council (Madrid)

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the meeting of the European Council in Madrid on 26 and 27 June which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
The full conclusions of the Council have been placed in the Library of the House. Economic and monetary matters were the main item on the Council's agenda. Agreement was reached on four points.
First, the objective of progressive realisation of economic and monetary union was reaffirmed. This objective was first set in 1972 before Britain joined the Community and has subsequently been reaffirmed on numerous occasions, including in the Single European Act passed by this House, but no definition of it was agreed in Madrid.
Second, the report of the Delors committee, which sets out an approach to economic and monetary union by stages, was accepted as a basis for further work, but not the only basis. It will be possible to bring in other ideas and other approaches.
Third, the Council agreed that the measures necessary to achieve the first stage of progressive realisation of economic and monetary union will be implemented from 1 July 1990. These include completion of the single market, abolition of all foreign exchange controls, a free market in financial services and strengthening of the Community's competition policy by reducing state aids. They are all matters for which the United Kingdom has campaigned strongly and where we are well ahead of the great majority of our European partners.
No decisions were reached on what should follow this first stage, and stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report were not endorsed. Indeed, several delegations—not only the United Kingdom—made clear that they had substantial difficulties with them.
Fourth, it was agreed to carry out the preparatory work for the organisation of an eventual intergovernmental conference to lay down subsequent stages, but such a conference would meet only after implementation of the first stage has begun and when there has been full and adequate preparation. Its decisions would have to be reached by unanimity and would require ratification by this House.
In short, we made as much progress as can be made at this stage while leaving longer-term issues for further discussion by Finance Ministers and central bank workers over the months and years ahead. We have ensured that there is nothing automatic about the move to subsequent stages.
Very difficult issues remain to be resolved. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear, stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report would involve a massive transfer of sovereignty which I do not believe would be acceptable to this House. They would also mean, in practice, the creation of a federal Europe.
The Government support the objective of closer monetary co-operation, but will work for solutions which leave crucial economic decisions in our own hands. Although Britain's membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system was not an

issue at this Council, I reaffirmed our intention to join the ERM, but we must first get our inflation down. We shall look for satisfactory implementation of other aspects of the first phase of the Delors report, including free movement of capital and abolition of foreign exchange control.
The Council also discussed what is called the social dimension. On this the United Kingdom's record is very good, and I took with me to Madrid our own document setting out our substantial achievements in this field. We have also ratified the Council of Europe's social charter, unlike some of our Community colleagues. The Council's conclusions on this subject recognise that the highest priority is to create the conditions for more jobs. The Government do not believe that the Community's proposed social charter would help to achieve this aim. Indeed, we believe that imposing extra burdens on industry would make the Community less competitive. That is the main reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was unable to accept the conclusions of the June Social Affairs Council, and I confirmed that refusal in Madrid.
But the conclusions of the European Council brought out a very important point, raised by many Governments during the discussion: that national legislation and voluntary agreements have a legitimate role in achieving the Community's social dimension, and not everything has to be the subject of directives from the European Community. We shall be putting that view very strongly in the further discussions which will take place.
I shall summarise very briefly the outcome of the Council's discussions on the other main issues. The Council reaffirmed the priority task of completing the single market with the emphasis on the areas of particular importance for the United Kingdom—financial services, technical standards, transport and public purchasing. The Council's discussions demonstrated that there will not be a withholding tax on savings—a proposal which the United Kingdom has consistently opposed. The Council welcomed the progress being made in the fight against fraud in relation to the Community budget. The Council showed that there is wide acceptance of our need to keep checks at frontiers against drugs, terrorism and criminals while making free movement of ordinary, law-abiding citizens a greater reality.
In political co-operation, the Heads of State and Government expressed their utter condemnation of what has happened in China and agreed a series of measures which match those that the United Kingdom is already taking. The Council also expressed its understanding of the anxiety which has been caused in Hong Kong by the atrocious happenings in China.
I would like to congratulate the Spanish Government on their presidency of the EC over the past six months, and in particular on the progress made on the single market, with over 60 directives agreed. I also congratulate the Spanish Prime Minister, Senor Gonzales on bringing a difficult European Council to a successful conclusion.
The main outcome of the Council—agreement to implement a first phase of economic and monetary union —is very much in the interests of British industry and the City of London, while fully protecting the powers of this House. Far from being isolated, as some have claimed, the United Kingdom was able to play an important role in bringing the Council to these sensible and practical conclusions. It is in the same spirit of determination to


strengthen co-operation with other members of the European Community, while arguing always for cutting constraints on enterprise and free competition and leaving to member states those decisions which properly belong to them, that we shall approach the undoubtedly difficult discussions of the Community's future which lie ahead.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for her statement.
On the important question of British participation in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, first, do the main conditions for entry into the exchange rate mechanism set down by the Prime Minister mean that she now accepts that exchange rate management must be the essential basis of monetary policy, as her Chancellor of the Exchequer believes?
Secondly, does she concur with her Chancellor's publicly stated view that he is
certain that participation in the Exchange Rate Mechanism would strengthen both the stability of the pound and efforts to bring down inflation?
If she does, would not membership of the ERM assist with efforts to bring down the present rate of inflation to European averages?
Thirdly, does the Prime Minister agree with the view of some of her right hon. Friends that participation in the exchange rate mechanism and the exercise of constructive influence in any development of stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report are essential if London is to remain a major financial centre? Does she accept that Britain would be in a better position to modify or remove less acceptable features of stages 2 and 3 if the pound were put into the ERM at an early date?
Fourthly, are not the conditions that the Prime Minister has laid down for participation in the exchange rate mechanism, most notably the condition that British inflation must be at the European average, just her way of saying that under her policies the pound will never join the exchange rate mechanism?
On the social charter, will the Prime Minister tell us why she is the only one of all the Community's Conservative leaders who rejects completely the proposals of the social charter? Does not the support for the charter by so many Governments right across the political spectrum in the Community reveal the Prime Minister's position as being isolationist, backward and disadvantageous to the British people?
Does the Prime Minister recall that after the NATO summit a month ago she said of the communique:
wriggle as some people may, that is what they have signed up to"?
As at Madrid she was forced to accept a process that she had set out to stop, will she make an exception to her own rule and, just for once, try not to wriggle out of the commitments she has made?

The Prime Minister: On the exchange rate mechanism, our promise has been that we would go in when the time was right. I put conditions on that and made it much clearer that when those conditions were met we should be able to go in. One condition depends on us, which is that we get inflation well down, but some of the other conditions depend on the other members of the Community. Some of them belong to the exchange rate mechanism, but still protect their currencies by not having freedom of capital movements and by keeping foreign exchange control. It is quite different to stay in an

exchange rate mechanism when one has foreign exchange control from when has abolished that foreign exchange control.
We shall see how the exchange rate mechanism holds up. I hope that it holds up reasonably well. The bands are very different for the particular currencies, but the abolition of foreign exchange controls will be a major event for the exchange rate mechanism.
On stages 2 and 3, many other people share our view that the—

Mr. Tony Banks: Name them.

The Prime Minister: Other people share our view that the stages set out in the Delors report are not the right stages.
I will name a person. I gladly respond to the hon. Gentleman's shouting. Karl Otto Poehl, the governor of the Bundesbank, in a speech on 22 June, said:
I myself doubt whether the time has come for such a comprehensive renunciation of sovereignty, namely the transfer of monetary powers to supranational institutions. I can only repeat what I said a little while ago. Neither a single currency nor a European central bank is necessary for an economic and monetary union to function. What is more important is that the member states pursue a consistent policy.
That is a very effective demonstration.
On the social charter, as I have said, some of the people round that table had not yet ratified the Council of Europe social charter, which we have signed and ratified, and which is here. They also pointed out that if they were to have anything like as good social services as we have they would require large subsidies of money from the bigger nations in the European Community. They again pointed out that the history of social services and membership of trade unions was totally different in many different countries. Therefore, the principle of what was called subsidiarity should come into play—the central Commission should not take unto itself powers that could quite well be carried out at national level—and that was included in the communique. We were instrumental in creating that communique and we shall be instrumental in carrying it out.

Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important decisions taken at Madrid was that, in the preparations for the eventual intergovernmental conference, the Delors report, valuable though it is, would not be the only document considered?
Will my right hon. Friend instruct the Treasury and the Bank of England to carry out a detailed review of the operation of the sterling area between 1931 and the 1960s? Sterling was never a single currency; it was a reserve currency. The Bank of England was its heart, but it was never its central bank. The Governments of other countries that were part of the sterling area continued to retain their own central banks and, of course, their own control of budgetary and fiscal policy. Is it not important that the Government should put forward proposals that reflect the British vision of a united Europe?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Delors report will not be the only document taken into account in considering how to come to closer monetary and economic union. We shall be able to pat up alternative schemes. It is clear that the governor of the Bundesbank thought that there were alternative schemes.


Our way is to co-operate through voluntary action, which we believe will achieve the same objective. We will, of course, look at the sterling area, in which this country has unique experience, because it could be valuable in the next stage of the Community's deliberations. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The right hon. Lady would be amazed if the rest of us were so naive as to believe her description of events. Anyone who listened to it would be bound to take it with, to coin a phrase, a large "sackful of salt". When will the Prime Minister realise that Britain's long-term best interests will be served by Britain helping to shape and being part of European integration rather than always being seen to be a block and barrier to it? Is it not odd that the line on economic and monetary integration which she defended in Madrid is almost exactly the same little Englander line that was put forward in the Labour party's European manifesto?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman could do better than that. Twelve nations signed the communique. The right hon. Gentleman seems to despise them all—nearly the whole of Europe.
Stage 1 of the Delors report is agreed. That is a quantum leap. It includes many other aspects of work that we must do in the Community, for example, on the internal market—which will be a quantum leap when it has been completed by 1992—the freedom of capital movement, abolition of foreign exchange controls and reduction of subsidies, so that there is much freer competition throughout the Community. That is a major step forward. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman could at least welcome it.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will my right hon. Friend accept the warm congratulations of Conservative Members and, I suspect, many people elsewhere on her remarkable achievement in Madrid, especially on rallying the support of some member states which, like us, are not enamoured of the idea of a bureaucratically controlled Community which would reduce national Parliaments to rubber-stamping machines? Does not Britain now have an opportunity to shape the future economic and social patterns of the Community in accordance with the wishes of all the people?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Several members of the Community are deeply disturbed by the transfer of sovereignty in stages 2 and 3, especially those whose Parliaments are central to their democratic processes. Parliaments have a varying significance to several nations of the Community. Many expressed doubts similar to those that we expressed; others do not want to be under the domination of a German-French axis, and therefore wish to develop different mechanisms. We shall do exactly what my right hon. Friend said—develop a system that is right for all members of the Community so that they can go forward on a voluntary and fully agreed basis which we can bring before the House for approval.

Dr. David Owen: Is the Prime Minister against any system of European central banks, especially a system that has the same anti-inflationary

pressures as witnessed by the Bundesbank? Does she rule out even parallel currencies? If she is as anxious as many hon. Members about a creeping movement towards a federal Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, against a federal Europe. The central principle is to preserve the right of the House to fix rates of direct taxation and of the House and the Government to fix their own borrowing requirements.

The Prime Minister: Under stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report, we should lose some of the rights to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. That just would not be acceptable to the House, for which such rights are central to the control of Parliament over the Executive.
With regard to the other points which the right hon. Gentleman made, we look for a way forward by voluntary agreement and co-operation to which we can gladly give our support steadily to work together more closely. That is the way forward.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware that people of all opinions about the EEC greatly admire her courage in trying to make the Common Market more workable and sensible and less bureaucratic? Does she think that it is a tragedy for our democracy that a party that at one time claimed to represent working people, who gave their lives and guts to fight for democracy and for people to be able to control decisions, is now prepared to pass that to bureaucrats? That party is led by someone who is little more than a Jacques Delors stooge.

The Prime Minister: One of the most worrying features of following stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report would be that the Council of Twelve, or the central bank governors, would have the deciding say in the guidelines to which the rest of us would have to agree. Those central bank governors would not he democratically accountable in any way.

Mr. Frank Dobson: But the right hon. Lady just quoted the boss of the Bundesbank with approval.

The Prime Minister: Certainly they would not. They would be much less democratically accountable than the Bundesbank is under the exchange rate mechanism as it currently operates. It is usual for the Government to be practical in their approach to Europe and to sort things out. That was our approach to the common agricultural policy—where surpluses are now right down—to the European budget, which is now on a reasonable basis, and to the internal market, with which we are steadily going ahead. Although it was right in the treaty of Rome at the beginning, it has not yet been achieved. It will be achieved by 1992 largely because we sought to make it one of our top priorities.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Prime Minister confirm that successive Conservative Prime Ministers signed the treaty of accession to the European Community and the Single European Act without an electoral mandate or the prior permission of the House? Is it not also true that initially the Government opposed the Single European Act? What is to prevent a similar reversal on a treaty to bring in economic and monetary union? Is it not clear that the acts and aspirations of the Prime Minister and of the right hon. Members for Old Bexley


and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) have stripped the powers of this House and therefore have denied the British people the right to determine their own legislation, their own taxation and—under economic and monetary union—their own effective Government?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in that successive Labour and Conservative Governments have gone ahead and negotiated with Europe and have signed communiqués with Europe and that is part of the duty of Governments in negotiating with other Governments within the European Community. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the conclusions of The Hague European Council meeting held in November 1976—which he will recognise took place during the time of a Labour Government:
The achievement of economic and monetary union is basic to the consolidation of Community solidarity and the establishment of European union.
There were similar references at European Councils in December 1974, July 1978 and December 1978. Yes, we have both been carrying out the duties of Government in negotiating with other Governments. Usually we have included in our manifesto the kind of Europe that we wish to see, and the hon. Gentleman is aware of the Europe that we wish to see. I had thought that we could get to a proper Common Market without a Single European Act. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Single European Act, for the purposes of achieving a single market, made more of the directives subject to majority voting, but kept certain of the essential features, such as taxation, subject to unanimous voting, and I think that that was absolutely vital.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be as warm a welcome in the country as there has been in this House for her reaffirmation that any transfer of sovereignty to implement Delors stages 2 and 3 would be totally unacceptable? There will also be a welcome for what she said about progress in Europe not depending on EEC directives alone. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on one particular achievement out of many in Madrid, and that is her skill in succeeding in getting the French Government to commit themselves unequivocally and unconditionally to the objectives for 1990 which we have supported for so long.

The Prime Minister: The communiqué makes it quite clear that stage 1 of the Delors report must begin to be implemented by July 1990. We have already done many of those things, and when we are arguing in Europe one of our great strengths is that in practical terms we are way ahead of many of our European partners in what we have actually done as distinct from what we say. We keep our promises. We have freedom of capital movement and we have abolished exchange controls. We actually deal in the ecu and we have issued securities in the ecu. We are quite prepared to have—and indeed have—various European currencies in our reserve. That is way ahead of many countries.

Mr. Peter Shore: There is uncertainty and anxiety about what precisely the Prime Minister agreed to in Madrid. Will she confirm that her conditional acceptance of stage 1 in no way commits us to acceptance of stage 2 or stage 3? Will she also pledge herself to oppose strenuously any proposal for economic

or monetary union, as the Delors plan envisages, which would transfer from Britain and its Parliament powers that are essential to economic self-government?

The Prime Minister: I thought that I had made it clear in my statement, although it is a complicated statement because we were dealing with a very complicated subject, that we have accepted stage 1 of the Delors report, which will not surprise the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that we accept the completion of the single market in any event. We accept abolition of foreign exchange controls—indeed, we have already done it—and we have been the first in seeking to get subsidies reduced across Europe. We have accepted all of those and are starting to implement them. That is stage 1.
We have not accepted stage 2 or stage 3. I was the only one really to refer to paragraph 39 in the Delors report—the hon. Gentleman will realise the significance of that—because I said that we did not accept that. Paragraph 39 attempted to say that, if one accepts any part of the report, one must be taken as accepting the whole. We totally and utterly rejected that, and so did the final communiqué. It was just an attempt to coerce us, and we would have nothing of it.
I hope that I also indicated that major derogations of national sovereignty of the kind in the Delors report, in which we give up fundamental functions with regard to monetary, fiscal economic policy to a group of central bank governors who are not democratically accountable, would not be acceptable to this House or to me in any way. I hope, therefore, that we can get further by co-operation. What matters is following consistent policies and not handing over responsibility to other bodies.

Mr. David Curry: Will my right hon. Friend accept Conservative Members' congratulations on demoting the status of holy writ that was attached to the Delors report and on making it clear that economic and monetary union are not the same things? Does she agree that, until there are further documents on the table, discussion is bound to centre on the Delors report? Therefore, will it not be in the interests of the United Kingdom for my right hon. Friend to put on the table her own proposals on how to enhance monetary co-operation so that countries that are deeply disturbed by the Delors report and people such as the president of the Bundesbank have an alternative paper on which discussions can be focused? That practice worked successfully in the case of fiscal harmonisation.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We shall be working out alternative proposals, and I hope that other people will do so, too, so that they are on the table to be considered during this interim stage. Other economists will be working upon it. It is very different from the approach of the Delors report, which seems to start from federation and then work backwards and pass major rights of national sovereignty to a kind of federated body. We will follow my hon. Friend's advice.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: When she reports back to the House on European Council meetings, why does the Prime Minister refer to discussions of social policy in terms of what is called the social dimension? Will she now confirm or deny whether she believes that the social dimension of Community policy exists as a linguistic and socio-economic reality? Does she


now accept that, for all other members of the Community, the social dimension is as much a part of European reality as the economic drive to the single market?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The most important aspect of the social dimension—the hon. Gentleman will find it in the communique—is development and job creation. This country has outshone any other in the European Community in the number of jobs that we have created in the past three years. It has been absolutely at the top of the scale on social dimension.
With regard to the social charter, many other countries would wish that they had social policies, social security policies, national health services and housing benefits as good as ours, and they openly admit that they could not possibly afford them without massive subventions from the rest of us. As we have already paid £2 billion this year to the Community, I do not think that we can undertake any more.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: In the further difficult negotiations that lie ahead, will my right hon. Friend stress that, over the centuries, the power of this House has rested on the control of money, both taxation and public expenditure, and that, contrary to the suggestion in the Delors report, the mass of expert evidence published by the Treasury Committee makes it clear that monetary union would not require countries to abdicate control over fiscal policy? Will my right hon. Friend make sure that that point is made clear in the forthcoming document as an alternative to the Delors report, which she has just promised?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. One of the problems of the Delors report was that, instead of defining several different ways of having European monetary and economic union, it set out on just one particular formula, and then set out the stages to that. Normally, if one commissions a report, one expects several options to be given, and the benefits and disadvantages of each to be weighed. That is what we must achieve.

Ms. Joyce Quin: The communiqué states that social aspects should clearly be given the same importance as economic aspects in the creation of a single market. Given that statement, which of the social methods that the Prime Minister has hitherto blocked is she now prepared to agree to so that some progress many be made?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is in the communiqué. If the hon. Lady looks at it she will also find that the most important issue in the social aspect is job creation and development, without which we would not have the wealth to create the rest of the social services. That is more or less understood by the people round the table. In the communique they also said that they thought that both voluntary agreement and national legislation had a great part to play in the social aspect of the Community, and should not be centralised through the Commission.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it ill behoves the Socialist President of France to lecture this country on progress towards European monetary union when he imposes restrictions on the ability of his fellow citizens to move their money across Europe? What would be the impact of the Madrid

agreement if attempts were made to reintroduce exchange controls into this country, as recommended by the Labour party?

The Prime Minister: The whole future of the internal market, free market, free movement of capital and one of the central parts of the European Community would go. It is designed for freer movement of money, goods and people, and that cannot be achieved unless we abolish foreign exchange control in all its forms. That has yet to be done by France and Italy, which are members of the European exchange rate mechanism. I hope that when they abolish their exchange controls, the European exchange rate mechanism will hold. It will be a considerable step forward.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that her attitude towards the Community's proposed social charter is a logical extension of her attitude in Britain towards workers, wages, conditions and trade union rights, and that that is reflected in the hard line being adopted by many public service employers is Britain? There can be no doubt where responsibility lies for the wave of strikes and industrial unrest. It lies in No. 10 Downing street.

The Prime Minister: Nonsense. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me earlier when I said that I had taken full accounts of our social policies, and handed them out. Far from there being any criticism of our social policy, there was a good deal of acclamation for the work that we had undertaken, and a good deal of agreement that social policy is right for the national Parliament to legislate upon and not right for the Commission to have major directives upon. There was also a good deal of agreement that the membership of people in trade unions varied enormously across the Community—from about 15 per cent. in one country to more than 50 per cent. in others—the history and legal systems were different and it was not a right and proper matter for the Community to legislate on. There was no criticism whatever of Britain's position, nor should there be because we are already operating many things in the charter to a far higher level than are some other countries.

Mr. David Howell: Bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend says about Britain being well ahead in many of these matters, did she have a chance to raise with Chancellor Kohl in Madrid the issue of the inward looking and anti-competitive structure of German industrial ownership, particularly in financial services? Is not that a matter in which majority voting, which has served this country well on many matters, could be used to crack open this cartelised criss-cross of holdings which works directly against the emergence of a single free market in Europe, which we want?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The German insurance and investment industries, for example, are very much more protected than ours; ours are much more open. Considerable restrictions are placed on investment of German insurance and pension funds. Again, we tend to be much more open.
I did not mention the matter to Herr Kohl on this occasion, but it is well known, and it is one of the reasons for our difficulties in getting some of the financial services directives approved. I know that my right hon. Friend will be very pleased that the second banking directive has now


been approved, and we have made financial services one of the top priorities for going ahead with the next six months of directives.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Why is the Prime Minister so reluctant to allow the British people to benefit from Europe's renaissance and play a part in the next European revolution? Does she not understand that the 20th-century notion of a nation state is becoming as irrelevant, tired and tiresome as she is?

The Prime Minister: It took us a long time to get rid of the effects of the French revolution 200 years ago, and we do not want another.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Was not the clear indication of the recent remarks of the governor of the Bundesbank about the exchange rate mechansim—quoted by my right hon. Friend—that he feared that, contrary to widespread popular belief, it might turn out to be an instrument for inflation rather than deflation? Does not that bear out the unwisdom of treating technical and practical matters as though they had some theological significance?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The exchange rate mechanism is, of course, anchored to the deutschmark. For historic reasons, the German people's greatest fear is and always has been inflation, just as for years ours was unemployment. Inflation has led them to have an independent Bundesbank and to keep inflation right down, and others are therefore geared to that as well. If we were to proceed to Delors stages 2 and 3, that would be determined not by a nation whose policies are so anchored in nil inflation but by a number of nations that might find it easier to have higher inflation. I think, therefore, that the Bundesbank governor is right to be a bit fearful of the consequences.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Can the Prime Minister confirm that anyone who read the full text of the declaration of economic and monetary union and the conclusions of the presidency will find that, along with the 11 other Heads of Government, she agreed that the Delors report was a good basis for further work on economic and monetary union, that it fulfilled the obligations laid down at Hanover, that it agreed that stage 1 should be launched on 1 July 1990 and that there would subsequently be an intergovernmental agreement to carry on with the second and third stages? Can the Prime Minister rebut the press reports of her comments that she would vote against such a conference and that the move to the second and third stages was not automatic?

The Prime Minister: As I said in my statement, the Delors report is one basis for further work, but not the only basis. That was recognised, and that is why it was put into the communiqué in such a way. We fully agree that stage 1 should start on 1 July 1990. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are already well ahead and already operating a good deal of the Delors report.
The preamble of the Single European Act refers to the original
objective of the progressive realization of Economic and Monetary Union,
which goes right back to the conference in Paris on 19 to 21 October 1972. We are not talking just about economic

and monetary union; we are talking about its progressive realisation, which allows a much more measured time so that we get each stage right before we go on the next.
Later in the Single European Act—passed by this House—there is a heading:
Co-operation in Economic and Monetary policy (Economic and Monetary Union)".
That seems to indicate that economic and monetary union consists of co-operation in economic and monetary policy, which suggest that there will be ways of achieving it other than the one in the Delors report.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when, in 1979, foreign exchange controls were abolished in this country it was in anticipation that the pound would freely float for the foreseeable future? Will she further anticipate that the French and other countries in the EEC may be somewhat reluctant to abolish their foreign exchange controls in a fixed rate mechanism and that therefore, sadly, our pound may not go into the exchange rate mechanism as early as some of our friends in the EEC had hoped?

The Prime Minister: I accept that the abolition of foreign exchange controls will be a very important event for those big currencies in the exchange rate mechanism which still rely on foreign exchange controls to keep within the relevant bands to which they have agreed. I also agree with my hon. Friend that if one goes to an absolutely fixed rate, which is proposed by the Delors report, without any latitude, I think that many of my other colleagues in the European Community would not like that and would feel that it put in a rigid rate which could create distortions elsewhere.
As often happens in the Community, we get such reports and generally people say, "We will consider them further." When they come to look at the detail, they too realise that they could not carry them out in some of the particular details that are mentioned in that report. I think that the fixed exchange rate is one that would come under considerable criticism and people could not do it; they prefer much wider bands, similar to those available at present.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Prime Minister ever read the small print of what she agrees to? She agreed to the Single European Act. We did not. She agreed at Hanover to the setting up of the Delors committee to work out the details of economic and monetary union. Why does she always bluff and bluster before conferences, and then give way when it comes to the crunch? If there is to be a central bank, to whom will it be responsible and accountable? What is the point of electing Members of Parliament to this place if economic policy is to be decided somewhere else? Is not the truth that, although the right hon. Lady is kicking and screaming, she is nevertheless being dragged along?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure from what the hon. Gentleman said whether he is for or against the view that I have taken. He was not exactly clear in his remarks. If anyone was kicking and screaming, that was not happening from this Dispatch Box but from the Opposition Benches.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about a central bank. It is described briefly in the Delors report. It is not accountable to anyone, and that was precisely one of my great complaints. It has no democratic accountability, far


less than the Bundesbank has at present, and I did not think that that would be acceptable to the British parliamentary system. So we are agreed on that.
When it comes to an intergovernmental conference, then I must say, as happened over the Single European Act, that one learns by experience that an intergovernmental conference can be called by a simple majority of countries there, and it can be called at any time that one can get a simple majority. Hence such a conference could be called.
Its conclusions would have to be agreed by unanimity, but before that happened the great effort that we made, and made successfully, was to throw enough doubt on the Delors report—in which we were assisted by many other colleagues—to make it clear that other ways forward must be considered. There are other ways of going progressively and steadily towards a different definition of monetary and economic union by, as Karl Otto Poehl says, consistently following similar policies but without direction.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The Liverpool Daily Post on Monday carried a headline saying
PM into battle with Europe.
Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to make it plain that it was not in that spirit that she set out in Madrid to advance British interests in the Community?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends and I had spent a considerable time studying the Delors report. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had set out his views extremely clearly in two speeches, one at Chatham house and one to the Institute of Directors. We went there to do as much as we could to try to get our viewpoint over to others and to try to get them along with us. Right at the beginning we had some people with us, and between us we convinced others that it would not be right to accept stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report. Nor would it be right just to consider that as one way only towards monetary and economic union. It was by steady study of the report and by steady and consistent argument that we won the day, and we have, as a result, the communiqué.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Given that one of the main aims of the treaty of Rome is to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, and that the recently published Office of Population Censuses and Surveys study on population trends in Britain shows that the gap is substantial and getting bigger, is this one of the aims of the treaty that the Prime Minister would like to see amended? If not, what proposals has she to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, both in Britain and in the Community?

The Prime Minister: There is only one way, and that is, as the communiqué puts it, by steady development and job creation. We do it not by speeches but by having a system of enterprise and incentive, which enables the creation of wealth, which enables much better and greatly improved social services. Many there were impressed by the social services that we have. The new report from the OPCS, shows that the statistics on infant mortality have again considerably improved all over the United Kingdom.

Mr. James Kilfedder: As a committed European, I congratulate the Prime Minister on the skill and tenacity that she showed at the Madrid conference.

This brought about a successful conclusion, which may lead to greater co-operation between European nations without further loss of national sovereignty. Are the other European leaders aware of the danger posed by terrorists using the freedom of movement of people between member states? What steps are being taken to deal with the issue?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend put it rightly when he said that we wish to have closer co-operation by voluntary means without surrendering national sovereignty to bodies that would not be democratically accountable. I notice that the 1971 White Paper, upon which the European Communities Act, through which we joined the Community, was founded, said:
Like any other treaty, the Treaty of Rome commits its signatories to support agreed aims: but the commitment represents the voluntary undertaking of a sovereign state to observe policies which it has helped to form. There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty".
As to frontiers, the removal of certain physical barriers, terrorism, drugs and criminal activity, I remind my hon. Friend that at the end of the Single European Act there is a general declaration, which all member states signed, saying:
Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of member states to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries, and to combat terrorism, crime, the traffic in drugs and illicit trading in works of art and antiques.
Once again, I drew the attention of European colleagues to that solemn general declaration which was made at the same time as the Single European Act was passed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that after this we have a further statement—the business statement—the Second Reading of a Bill and then opposed private business at 7 o'clock. I shall take three more questions from each side and then we must move on.

Mr. Dick Douglas: We accept that what the Prime Minister has done has bought a little time in which she can learn some of the lessons of history. They show that, in the management of currency, any international organisation set up to do this will manage it in the interests of the dominant currency or country. For example, the gold standard was managed in the interests of sterling, Bretton Woods was managed in the interests of the dollar and the European monetary system is managed in the interests of the deutschmark. If we repeatedly stand on the side, we shall be held continuously at a competitive disadvantage. Will the Prime Minister accept that her strictures about democratic control in relation to macroeconomic policy and fiscal policy would carry much more weight if she showed greater respect for this institution, the House of Commons? Does she accept that her negotiating posture is a wasting asset in relation to Europe?

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Douglas: Will she give time in the coming recess to thinking of moving over and being replaced by somebody much more suitable?

The Prime Minister: I will not take lessons from anyone about respect for the House of Commons. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that my record of attending on Tuesdays and Thursdays has exceeded that of any other


Prime Minister. Also, if he looks throughout the Community, I think that he will find that there are not many who are making statements in their own Parliaments about what happened in Madrid. There is a statement in the Danish Parliament and possibly in the Netherlands Parliament, but others do not have their Prime Ministers under the kind of cross-examination that I welcome because it enables one to get several facts across to the Opposition.

Sir Peter Hordern: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend most warmly on her firm commitment to join the exchange rate mechanism? Is she aware that one of the conditions that she has set out lies not fully within our control—the abolition of exchange controls? Will she therefore have a word with Mr. Mitterrand and tell him that life in the Community without exchange controls is very agreeable and that it is most unlikely that there will be a flood of money leaving France as a result of abolishing exchange controls since the French people will pursue their timeless custom of keeping their gold under their beds no matter what Government are in power?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. The French are now committed to abolition of exchange controls in 1990. As my hon. Friend is aware, they tried to impose certain capital taxes on others before they would agree to abolition. We put up a tremendous fight, as did others, and we were successful. The French did not get the imposition of an extra capital tax or the withholding of tax on capital. They are now committed to 1990. I think that Spain is committed to 1992. It will be an important step when they take it, but I agree that it is a vital one for them to take.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: In view of the comments of the Prime Minister in the House this afternoon about the Delors report—that it is a way forward and that parts of it are now acceptable—will she tell us whether she still considers it to be Marxist, or has she mellowed since Madrid?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone has ever said that it was Marxist. What we have said is that it transfers a fundamental part of the sovereignty of a sovereign Parliament to a group of people, which is a great centralising feature where there is no democratic control. That is totally and utterly wrong, whatever one calls it.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her very nimble footwork in Madrid which seems to have led her to moving away from the previously preferred menu of Europe a la carte into serving up an interesting new dish of good old British fudge which will take the EC a very long time to digest? Can she confirm that none of the Delors proposals which survived into this superbly fudged Madrid communique is irresistible or irreversible?

The Prime Minister: I can only confirm that we did not accept stages 2 and 3, that they are to be considered along with other proposals, that it was clear from the speeches

that were made that many other colleagues did not accept the details of stages 2 and 3 and did not like the very great transfer of sovereignty that would be involved in their Parliaments, and that those Parliaments that did not like it were those where the democratic process is at its most obvious. I do not think that it is necessarily a fudge. My hon. Friend is right that it has bought time to do a lot more work on how to co-operate on the next stage. That is the way that I would put it.

Mr. John P. Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell the House and the country precisely what it is in the social charter that she finds so objectionable? Is it the right to fair pay, the right to clean, safe and decent working conditions, equal rights for men and women, or what?

The Prime Minister: No. It is the imposition of many things upon which we already have our own national legislation or our own national policy, derived from our history and from our particular kind of law, which is very different from the law in the Community, and the feeling that if each and every country is to have imposed upon it some of the ways of other countries in addition to their own we shall have maximum costs on industry and finish up with a highly protected Europe which would suit some people, but not us.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on her positive statement This afternoon and on the fact that in Madrid 10 of our fellow partners in the EC were very much on our side in adopting our step-by-step approach to commitment to economic and monetary union—an approach which was well prepared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a meeting a few weeks earlier? During the period that we have to prepare for stage 1 of the Delors report, will the Government do their utmost to ensure that we meet the conditions that are imposed and that we put maxim um pressure on our partners in the Community to meet the conditions that we believe should be imposed on them so that we are more than ready to join the exchange rate mechanism at the earliest possible date?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I hope that stage 1 will go well because the completion of the internal market on its own is in all our interests and was one of the things that we joined the Community for in the first place. We still have to meet some of the directives, some of which are the most difficult, but I hope that we shall get well ahead with that. I hope that the foreign exchange controls will be abolished in 1990 and that we shall see the steady removal of subsidies in industries across Europe because while they exist there cannot be fair competition. We shall attempt to carry out our part of the bargain and to persuade others to carry out theirs.
We have agreed to the progressive realisation of economic and monetary union. It is not a sudden thing. We shall go steadily towards it taking one step at a time and in that way achieve a much more certain future than we would if we were pressured into something in which we did not believe.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 3 JULY—Supplemental timetable motion on and progress on consideration of Lords amendments to the Water Bill.
TUESDAY 4 JULY—Until seven o'clock, completion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Water Bill.
Second Reading of the Antarctic Minerals Bill [Lords].
Completion of remaining stages of the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 5 JULY—Opposition Day (17th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The Crisis in Training". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "The Immigration Rules and DNA Testing." Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Committee and remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill.
THURSDAY 6 JULY—Estimates Day (2nd Allotted Day). There will be debates on common police services and expenditure on information technology. Details of the Estimates concerned and the relevant Select Committee reports will be given in the Official Report.
Remaining stages of the Human Organ Transplants Bill.
FRIDAY 7 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 10 JULY—Estimates Day (3rd Allotted Day). There will be debates on Department of Energy administration and civil aviation services. Details of the Estimates concerned and the relevant Select Committee reports will be given in the Official Report.

[Thursday 6 July

Estimate:

Class XI, Vote 3 (Home Office administration, immigration and police support services, England and Wales), so far as it relates to common police services.

Relevant Select Committee Reports:

Home Affairs Committee 1st Report, Session 1988–89 on the Forensic Science Service ( HC 26) and the Government's response (CM 699).

Home Affairs Committee 3rd Report, Session 1988–89 on Higher Police Training and the Police Staff College (HC 110).

Home Affairs Committee 4th Report, Session 1988–89 on Home Office Expenditure (HC 314).

Estimate:

Class V, Vote 2 (Department of Trade and Industry: support for industry), so far as it relates to expenditure on information technology.

Relevant Select Committee Reports:

Trade and Industry Committee 1st Report, Session 1988–89 on Information Technology (HC 25), and the Oral Evidence given on 26 April (HC 338 ).]

Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. I start by thanking the Government for accepting the Opposition's arguments that the Antarctic Minerals Bill is of such significance, not just to us but to the future of the planet, that it is sensible to debate it at a reasonable hour.
Having expressed my thanks, I must express my concern at the proposal to dispose of the Water Bill in a further day and a half. The Bill is currently 416 pages long and there are 55 pages of Lords amendments to be considered. I understand that the Government have put down a further 300 amendments, though they are not yet available in the Vote Office for anyone who wants to know what they are about. That means that, at best, each amendment will receive less than one minute's scrutiny.
In view of the importance that the Prime Minister said today she attaches to parliamentary scrutiny and sovereignty, does the Leader of the House agree that it would be better to devote a little more time to the Water Bill, particularly as to do so might relieve his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment of future appearances in the courts? Even his short measures usually end up with him losing cases in the High Court. We believe that it is right and proper that more than one and a half days should be devoted to that very important legislation.
I hope there is support from right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House for a debate before the recess on the situation in China and in Hong Kong, in the light of recent events and of the recent visits by the Foreign Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary to Hong Kong.
Finally, I return to my two old chestnuts. When is there likely to be a statement by the Government on the Griffiths report "Care in the Community", and shall we have an opportunity to debate their response before the recess? When may we expect the long-promised debate on the proposal to substitute student grants by student loans? Will there be one before the recess, or will the right hon. Gentleman wait until the students return to their studies in the autumn?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked five questions in relation to next week's business. I thank him for his remark about the Antarctic Minerals Bill. That is an important measure, and I believe that the time we have found is satisfactory to all concerned.
The time we have allocated to the Water Bill is more than adequate for dealing with the amendments, as the majority of them are technical. As to the hon. Gentleman's reference to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I seem to remember him winning court cases rather than losing them.

Mr. Dobson: He loses more than he wins.

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend has had a winning streak recently, which is more than can be said for the hon. Gentleman.
As to the important question of China and Hong Kong, I recognise the need for at least a foreign affairs debate shortly. I hope to find time for one in the relatively near future, and that matter will be discussed through the usual channels.
The Government intend to make a statement about the Griffiths proposals before the summer recess, and there will be a debate in Government time at a suitable opportunity thereafter. I cannot promise exactly when that will be.
Although the hon. Gentleman asks me about student top-up loans every week, it seems that he still does not understand our proposals—which is a very good reason for a debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State


for Education and Science and I have both made it clear already that we would welcome such a debate, but its timing is best discussed through the usual channels.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1038.
[That this House deplores the remarks of the honourable Member for Brent, East during the adjournment debate on Tuesday 27th June in which he alleged that the late Airey Neave was involved in treason; notes that Airey Neave had been decorated for gallantry on four occasions, and had served his country with honour in war and peace; and calls on the honourable Member for Brent, East to apologise to the House and to withdraw his disgraceful remarks.]
That early-day motion concerns the Adjournment debate on 27 June and the remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who said that the late Airey Neave was involved in terrorism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Treason."] Rather, that the late Airey Neave was involved in treason. If those remarks had been made about any existing right hon. or hon. Member, the hon. Member for Brent, East would have had to withdraw them immediately. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether there is any way to prevent such a thing happening again? Airey Neave had a war record of great bravery, gave great service to this House, and was killed by cowards. Surely there is some way of protecting his reputation from political pygmies.

Mr. Wakeham: The question of order is one for you, Mr. Speaker, not me—though I may say that I very much agree with your remarks last night. I agree also with the comments of my hon. Friend. I totally deprecate the remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and believe that he should withdraw them.

Mr. James Wallace: Does the Leader of the House intend to have a debate on the Procedure Committee's report on the ten-minute Bill procedure? We welcome the fact that there is to be an early debate on foreign affairs, but does not the Leader of the House accept that on both sides of the House there is considerable concern about the position in China, in particular about the plight of British passport holders in Hong Kong? Those matters should not be relegated to a general debate on foreign affairs. Could the Leader of the House not think again about holding a debate that relates specifically to Hong Kong and China?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise an early debate on the ten-minute Bill procedure. Some of our new arrangements are working better than the previous arrangements, but we shall have to look into the matter again and I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
I agree that Hong Kong is a particularly important matter. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on Hong Kong is expected to be published tomorrow. I hope to be able to arrange a debate in due course after its publication, but we must await the report.

Mr. Michael Marshall: On the day that marks the centenary of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and following the unveiling earlier today by you, Mr. Speaker, of the bust of the Back Bencher who founded the Inter-Parliamentary Union, may I ask my right hon. Friend, in view of what he said a moment or two ago, whether the foreign affairs debate that he has in mind might encompass—perhaps in terms of the motion that is

tabled—recognition and appraisal of the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, embodying, as it does, important contributions from both sides of the House?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall consider carefully my hon. Friend's suggestion which, if it could be incorporated, would be appropriate. I am sure that in its debate on foreign affairs the House would want to pay tribute to the work of the IPU.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: May we have a two-day debate on foreign affairs? Apart from the question of China and Hong Kong, there is also the confused situation in Europe. I have been a Member of this House for a long time and I have heard many of my hon. Friends talk about Europe. For example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) argued quite strongly when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer that we ought not to join the European monetary system, or rush into it. I have also heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who now speaks on economic matters say recently on radio that we ought not to rush into the EMS. I am a little confused. We ought, therefore, to have a serious debate about Europe, when we could discuss the implications of a wider Europe rather than just the Common Market.
Increasingly, the nation state is being discussed, even in the Soviet Union where it was not discussed before. There are so many serious issues of great importance—not yah-boo politics—that need to be properly debated here. The future of Europe and our position in Europe are among the matters that ought to be debated. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take on board what I have said and to consider holding a two-day debate so that on one of those days we may discuss Europe seriously, not on the basis of yah-booism.

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are some serious issues to be discussed, but I hope that he recognises the difficulties I am in. I have already had requests for debates on foreign affairs and Hong Kong, and now I have had a request for a debate on Europe. With the best will in the world, it will be impossible to meet all those demands in the immediate future. May I ask the hon. Gentleman, who I know raises the matter seriously, to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and see whether he can help me to find one of the three days.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Having had an involuntary swim in the River Thames yesterday during the course of the annual dinghy race between this House and another place, I can bear witness to the cleanliness of the water in the Thames. However, the same cannot be said of the state of cleanliness of the waters off our coastline, in particular off south Devon. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will give full time for a debate that will cover not just the technical points in the Lords amendments to the Water Bill but the very important issue of pumping raw sewage into the English Channel?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree that these are important matters, and that we must make time to debate them and get across the message that, whatever shortcomings there may be, our record is considerably better than that of a great many other parts of Europe. Although I am


responsible for finding the bulk of the time for the Lords amendments to the Water Bill, others will have a say in how best to allocate that time. No doubt, however, my hon. Friend's point will be borne in mind.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1003 about the crisis in Sylvan high school in Croydon.
[That this House deplores the proposal of Croydon Council to close Sylvan High School, an 11–16 years mixed comprehensive, and establish a city technology college in its place against the wishes of parents, school governors and staff; notes that parents voted 97 per cent. against the proposal, on a 57 per cent. turnout, despite Croydon Council circulating 13,907 copies of a consultation document and refused the Save Sylvan Campaign facilities to circulate a one-page response; believes Sir Phillip Harris, who heads the sponsors, is misguided in his desire to change the school and deeply regrets that the proposal has led to uncertainty which has gravely damaged the school, leading to the loss of staff which according to the Times Educational Supplement will mean that in September the school has the prospect of no drama, music or full-time commitment to humanities, and two-thirds of the craft design technology staff missing; reminds the Secretary of State of his visit to Sylvan High School in 1986, following which he wrote to the school saying he found the dedication of the Head and staff to be impressive, was delighted to see so much enthusiasm by the pupils and was reassured to know of such worthwhile and rewarding work; and therefore calls upon the Right honourable and honourable Members who constituencies are affected to make vigorous representations to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to take account of the vote of parents expressing parental choice, which should be paramount.]
Could we have an early debate before the Secretary of State reaches a decision on the application of that school to become a city technology college, bearing in mind that 97 per cent. of the parents, in a 57 per cent. turnout, voted against? In September, because of the massive loss of staff, it is likely that the children will be unable to take a whole range of courses. All Croydon Members have been asked to make representations. I know that parents of all political persuasions are extremely grateful for the action that you have taken, Mr. Speaker—the school is in your constituency, although it serves the borough—and they have asked me to say how grateful they are to you and to do so at as early an opportunity as possible. I met them, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). However, the parents are not so keen on what the other three right hon. and hon. Members for Croydon have been doing. Before the school is damaged beyond recall, so that parents take their children away from it, it is crucial that we have an early debate so that the Secretary of State for Education and Science can get the real feelings of parents in Croydon, which he is unable to get in the House at present.

Mr. Wakeham: Let me put the record straight. Croydon council's proposal to close Sylvan high school is now before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He will reach a decision on the proposal, strictly on its merits, and will take into account

the views of those who have an interest in the matter. I do not believe that I should say anything in advance of his decision.

Sir Peter Hordern: May I ask my right hon. Friend to hold a two-day debate on foreign affairs? I support what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller). One of the days should be devoted to European affairs, perhaps with the co-operation of the Opposition. Is my right hon. Friend able to say what has happened to the debate which was to take place on parliamentary pensions?

Mr. Wakeham: It seemed to me that the time at which the debate on parliamentary pensions would have taken place the other night was sufficiently late to have made it difficult for hon. Members to grasp some of the complexities, and that the speeches might be better if we managed to hold the debate a little earlier in the evening.
As for my hon. Friend's request for a two-day debate on foreign affairs, I know that he will have some sympathy for me at this time of the year. Seeking to find one day, let alone two days, for a foreign affairs debate is difficult enough. I shall do my best, but I really cannot give any firm undertaking.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I support the appeal of many hon. Members for sufficient time to be devoted to a foreign affairs debate so that some of us can express our very strong support for the Transport and General Workers Union in passing a resolution that Britain should get rid of nuclear weapons. We could then invite support for the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty which is supported by 133 nations that have refused either to manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons. Then we could adopt a morally superior attitude which I hope would be more acceptable to my hon. Friends. It would be useful to have time to debate that matter.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not often get upset with the hon. Gentleman but he seems to have dished my ploy of trying to persuade the Leader of the Oppositon to find a day, if that is the basis on which he wants to have a debate. I shall have to struggle on as best I can.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Now that the importance of Europe is beginning to dawn on Membcrs of Parliament, even though it has not dawned upon the two out of three electors who stayed at home during the Euro-elections, and as it is becoming more and more obvious that this place will have to exercise a bit more parliamentary control over what the Government are doing in that connection, is it not time to consider the totally deplorable way in which the House considers European measures and to institute a review that leads to an improvement of the way in which we consider what goes on in Europe?

Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, the Select Committee on Procedure is considering that matter. A number of people, including myself, have given evidence to it. We are still considering some of the issues. I hope that some further constructive proposals may be put to the Select Committee in the not-too-distant future so that we can find a better way of dealing with these important issues, which I fully agree with my hon. Friend are not dealt with adequately at present.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that a number of people, including me, have been infuriated by the refusal of an orange badge parking permit to a woman suffering from thalidomide who has no arms although she can walk? That decision is insensitive, stupid, unjustified and bureaucratic. Will he tell the Minister for the disabled that a deputation of Opposition Members wishes to see him next week to complain about that individual case and, because there is evidence that the Minister is now considering decisions which would rob thousands of disabled people of their orange badges, we want to talk to him before any decision is made? May we also have a debate next week?

Mr. Wakeham: The answer to the last part of the question is that I am sorry but I cannot find time for a debate next week. However, the answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is that these are matters for my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic and I shall refer them to him. As I understand it, the difficulty has been that there has been a very great increase in the number of parking permits given to people who have difficulty in walking. The parking concessions are primarily for those disabled people who have difficulty in walking. Other concessions and help may be more appropriate to people with other disabilities. I know that my hon. Friend is considering these matters and I have no doubt that he will find the best possible solution.

Mr. Michael Latham: As my right hon. Friend is shortly to bring the clergy ordination measure before the House, as it has been narrowly approved by the ecclesiastical committee, will he consider bringing before the House proposals to get rid of that committee altogether? Is he aware that some of us who have served on that committee for 15 years believe that that type of parliamentary control is completely out of date?

Mr. Wakeham: The measure to which my hon. Friend refers is now before another place. I shall await its passage there before bringing it forward here. I do not want to answer the wider question off the cuff. I have no views on the matter or on any changes, but if my hon. Friend would like to write to me or talk to me, I should be happy to discuss the matter further.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have an early debate on the anxieties of teachers in my constituency in Leicester, and I am sure throughout the country, at the growing shortage of resources which is making life more difficult in all schools, but especially in schools in disadvantaged areas, and the shortage of speech therapists and other experts to help people not to suffer from unnecessary disablement? As our schools go into their holidays tomorrow, can they please have some hope of returning to better news?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise first that the teacher-pupil ratio at present is substantially better than it was under the Government that he supported. I recognise that it is not perfect and that there are shortages, particularly in certain areas. He will also agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has taken steps to improve the position, particularly in certain specialised subjects. I cannot promise an early debate,

although I note that my right hon. Friend is answering questions on Tuesday, so perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will make his points then.

Sir John Stokes: While we all enjoy hard work, will my right hon. Friend soon be in a position to announce the date of the summer recess, which might possibly be earlier this year, so that we can give our full attention to important matters like cricket and eschew politics for a while?

Mr. Wakeham: I promise my hon. Friend that I shall announce the date of the summer recess as early as I can manage. I promise my hon. Friend that it will be for as long as I can manage, but I am afraid I cannot tell him the date yet.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of what the Prime Minister had to say about the Common Market, and her attitude to current issues such as the EMS, perhaps we could get rid of the Water Bill next week and have a debate on the Common Market. Then the Prime Minister could explain whether it is true that she said to the other leaders in Madrid when she was explaining Britain's social charter that she had introduced a new measure—£7,000 for sacked Ministers. She could also explain whether the holding position on the Common Market will last only until she leaves the stage, let us say during the next 12 months, and hands over to another Tory leader. Perhaps we can then finish off with a Bill— the Single European Bill mark 2—so that some of us can vote it down. If that is what the Prime Minister wants, we shall give her a chuck on.

Mr. Wakeham: I had better delay before having such a debate. In that delaying time, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) who seems to have become a Euro-fanatic in recent weeks to see whether he can sort him out. Then we would have a consistent line from the Opposition who seem to have changed their tune.

Mr. Roger King: I am aware of the replies from my right hon. Friend about the lack of time for debates, but will he bring pressure to bear on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House on the rail strike? It is causing widespread dismay among people in all parts of the kingdom. We could look for some answers and some solutions to the future problems of the rail industry, and ascertain the views of Opposition Members who have remained absolutely silent on this highly difficult situation.

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation requires us to consider policies, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's Question Time. However, I do not believe that it is the right moment for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House about the strike. It is a matter for those who are on strike and the management to resolve. I should have thought that many of the strikers would think carefully about whether they want to continue to inflict unnecessary suffering on so many commuters.

Mr. Max Madden: As the Government refused to make a statement or provide a Government debate on the DNA centrally organised


testing scheme, and as the Labour party is now providing a three-hour debate on the subject next week, will the Leader of the House consider adding some Government time so that many unanswered questions can be resolved?
Secondly, before the right hon. Gentleman decides the date of the summer recess, will he arrange for a debate on the plight of British pensioners, particularly those who have to live on the basic pension? That would enable the Government to consider introducing a summer bonus to help pensioners cope with the increasing prices in the shops and water, electricity and gas charges and announcing that the Christmas bonus will be increased in line with the inflation that has occurred since it was first introduced. It is a scandal that British pensioners are living at the lowest standards of any pensioners in Europe. When will the Government provide time for us to discuss their plight and do something about it?

Mr. Wakeham: It is neither a scandal nor accurate. The hon. Gentleman does not understand what is going on. No pensioner in Britain is expected to live on the basic pension alone. Of course, 80 per cent. of all pensioners have income from private sources and the Government provide help for those on low incomes through income support and housing benefit. In October, 2.5 million pensioners will gain from the £200 million poorer pensioners' package. Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman says is just not correct. Perhaps he should do his homework before we have any such debate.
With regard to the debate on immigration rules and DNA testing on the day next week that I have allocated as an Opposition day, I find it rather strange that any important subject that the Opposition choose to debate on an Opposition day should be considered unreasonable. Opposition days are for debating matters that the Opposition want to debate. We provide the day and they provide the subject for debate. That is perfectly proper.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To return to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion No. 1023, which is headed:
Industrial Action on British Rail"?
[That this House deplores the continuing misery and disruption to British Rail customers, notes that during last week's bus strike in London those bus services which have been put out to tender by L.R.T. and which are now run by private operators continued to run; and therefore calls upon the Government to bring forward early proposals to denationalise British Rail and to consider also introducing legislation to ban strikes in essential public services.]
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is a need for an early debate on the subject because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield said, there has been a deafening silence from the Opposition and we want to know whether the Leader of the Opposition is the strikers' friend on this issue as well?

Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate my hon. Friend's understandable curiosity on these matters. Yesterday's rail strike was quite unnecessary and caused disruption for millions, especially in London. Such industrial action is pointless and, once again, I urge the rail unions to accept British Rail's offer of talks.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Leader of the House recall that he has often promised that we would have a debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on toxic waste and the Government's response to it? As the Government are intending to introduce legislation later this year and there is increasing concern within county councils, will he give an assurance that he will hold the debate before the summer recess? In recognising the problems on that and to save him having to answer the same question every week, will he give a firm promise that a debate will be provided before the Government introduce legislation affecting waste disposal?

Mr. Wakeham: No, I will not give any such undertaking. The Committee reported on 8 March and the Government published a full response as a Command Paper on 27 April. The response described in detail the measures already in hand to meet most of the Committee's recommendations and firmly rebuffed the remaining recommendations. We have discussed many environmental issues in recent weeks. At this stage in the year, it is difficult to find additional time, so I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a further debate in the immediate future.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate and the opportunity to vote on the procedures of the House and on the facilities available to hon. Members to do their job in representing their constituents? I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that when new Members arrive in this place and declare it a silly way to run a country and Parliament, we are told that after a couple of years we shall get used to it and like it. I have now been here a couple of years and I would not run a country in the way in which we do now. May we have the opportunity to change our procedures?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is doing a great job in running the country and I congratulate him on his efforts. I am not sure that additional debates on improving the facilities of this place would get us very far. There are many steps being taken and we are doing our best to improve the facilities. I do not want to sound like an old hand, but the facilities are far better than they were when I came into the House and many hon. Members have been here far longer than I have. We are making some progress.
We had a debate the other day on procedure matters. It was not very well attended and only a few hon. Members were anxious to contribute. Those who did were mostly members of the Select Committee on Procedure, with a few others. However, it was a good debate and we shall come back to procedure debates later on for sure. There are several reports on procedure, but I cannot promise an early debate on them at present.

Mr. Tony Banks: I want to take the Leader of the House back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about ministerial hand-outs. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether it is true that Ministers will receive redundancy payments? If so, will that money go to Ministers who jump as well as those who are pushed? If that is so, and something nasty happens to the right hon. Gentleman, will he opt to take the money or to go with dignity?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is quite as innocent as he would like us to


believe sometimes. I shall do my best to explain the position to him. The Top Salaries Review Body considered the question of ministerial severance pay carefully, following support for its introduction from hon. Members of all parties. I told the House in May 1988 that the Government proposed to implement the TSRB recommendations when parliamentary time allowed.
I suppose that the hon. Gentleman might be singing a different song if he thought that he had a chance of ever becoming a Minister, so his comments are understandable. The position has not changed one iota since May 1988.

Mr. James Cran: Will my right hon. Friend find some time for us to discuss the important ramifications of the report into the brewing industry by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, especially against the background of the extravagant campaign being conducted, I believe, by the Brewers Society and some of the major brewers and also against the background that some people are trying to turn logic on its head by suggesting that it is not monopolistic for six large brewers to control 75 per cent. of beer production, 74 per cent. of brewers' tied houses and 86 per cent. of loan ties? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are some important ramifications for monopoly policy in that area and that the House should discuss them?

Mr. Wakeham: My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is continuing to discuss the issues with the national brewers and we should await the outcome of those discussions before we think about having a debate.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that I am having great difficulty in winning the ballot for private Members' motions so that I can raise the question of the proprietorial

control of The Observer newspaper by Tiny Rowland? Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to read the report of the independent directors of The Observer who were critical of The Observer's coverage of the takeover of House of Fraser, but equally whitewashed the activities of Mr. Donald Trelford, Mr. Adam Raphael, Mr. Rowland and his colleagues on the publication in The Observer of articles relating to Tornado? Is he aware that when the independent directors went in they did not interview the journalists? If they had done so, the report might have been very different. Should not Parliament be allowed the right to debate these matters, which are important to the freedom of the press?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that I can help the hon. Gentleman very much. He may not be lucky in winning the private Members' ballot. If I were able to enter it and I won it, I should let him have my ticket, but unfortunately I am not allowed to do so, so I cannot help him this week.

Mr. Greg Knight: My right hon. Friend is a reasonable man. May I ask him, therefore, to think again about providing time for a debate on the rail strike, in view of the strength of feeling among Conservative Members? Is it not important that Conservative Members are able to place on record their views on the troglodyte behaviour of Mr. Jimmy Knapp? Is it not equally important that the House and the country have the opportunity to learn the views of the Leader of the Opposition on this matter? As a result of his silence, if he is not the strikers' friend on this issue, he is certainly the invisible man.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point well. If I were able to find time, the subject would make an interesting debate.

Points of Order

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the usual whinge. We had a very important statement today. Given the great forest of people who sought to catch your eye, it was quite impossible that they could all do so. All I ask is whether, the next time we have a very important statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister after a Council of Europe meeting, it would be possible to take some sort of list of those who sought to get in today, but who, quite understandably, were unfortunate in not being able to catch your eye.

Mr. Speaker: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and distress about the matter. I do keep a list and I looked at it today. I will certainly continue to do so.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You cannot call every hon. Member. I was not called and I am not whingeing. I used a bit of ingenuity and raised the matter in business questions. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) could have done the same if he had been smart enough.
On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have not raised the matter of the Rose theatre before because it has been left to others who deal with such cultural matters. It has been brought to my attention that it is high time that we had another statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Tony Banks: Hear, hear.

Mr. Skinner: I hear my hon. Friend saying, "Hear, hear." He knows about this. It is important that we have a statement, because there are possibly some connections which are a little unsavoury, to say the least, namely—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should have raised this matter with the Leader of the House. I can arrange neither statements nor debates.

Mr. Skinner: It is a constitutional matter, Mr. Speaker. I want to know in what way I, or someone else, can raise this matter. A Member of the House of Lords, Lord McAlpine of West Green, treasurer of the Tory party and non-executive director of Imry Merchant Developers, may well be catching the ear of the Secretary of State for the Environment more than anyone else in this matter. Can I raise the matter here or should it be raised somewhere else? Is it a matter of privilege?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should not raise the matter with me.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will not whinge either about the ministerial statement. The Select Committee on Procedure is considering the scrutiny of EEC legislation and EEC matters. I know that, if there are complaints about timing, you will say that the business of the House is not your concern. It is, however, your prerogative to determine how long you will allow questions on a statement to continue. As the summits come up only once every six months, would not the ability of the House to scrutinise EEC matters be enhanced by allowing questions on those statements to continue for a sufficiently long time to enable all hon. Members—apart from me, of course—to ask the Prime Minister a question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that on this occasion I allowed questions on the Prime Minister's statement to continue for an hour. There was then another statement, on which questions ran for 50 minutes. We are about to consider the Second Reading of a Bill. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) correctly stated, it is impossible for every Member to be called. I do my best to be utterly fair. I do not think that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is a deprived citizen.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the six motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts by Children in Rear Seats) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Education (National Curriculum) (Modern Foreign Languages) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 825) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in English) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 907) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 971) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Offshore Installations (Emergency Pipe-line Valve) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1029) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Education (School Flours and Policies) (Information) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 398) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of Broadcasting in Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I apologise for the fact that I cannot be here for the wind-up speeches because of a commitment that I found difficult to escape. I have informed the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) of my proposed absence.
The purpose of this Bill is to extend the existing franchise for British citizens overseas and to set a new limit on candidates' election expenses at a United Kingdom parliamentary by-election.
In 1985, the House decided that the right to vote for Britons abroad should no longer be confined just to members of the forces and other servants of the Crown. In building on those existing arrangements, as we did in the Representation of the People Act 1985, we showed, I hope, that our electoral arrangements can evolve and adapt, in a sensible and practical way, to changing social circumstances without losing their essential character and continuity. The House is rightly cautious in new legislation on the franchise. We set an initial time limit of five years on the period during which a British citizen resident abroad may register to vote. We also imposed, both in the Act and in regulations made later, a number of restrictions and conditions on the extension we were making.
The Government made a commitment, at the time that we agreed to these restrictions and conditions, that we would review them in the light of their operation. My predecessor said:
as time goes on, many of the objections that have been voiced will be seen to be invalid. It is likely that a case for a further extension will be made out."—[Official Report, 29 January 1985; Vol. 72, c. 217.]
After three years' experience of the overseas franchise, the time has come to make that case.
The arrangements made in 1985 have not proved attractive to our citizens abroad. Only 12,000 overseas British citizens worldwide were registered to vote in 1987, the first year of operation, and also a general election year. In 1988 the numbers registered in the whole of the United Kingdom fell sharply to just over 2,000. There has been little improvement this year, despite the opportunity for registered overseas electors to vote in the recent European parliamentary elections. There are 2,832 overseas electors on the register for England and Wales, 132 in Scotland and just six for the whole of Northern Ireland—a total of only 2,970 for the United Kingdom. We must, I believe, ask ourselves why this franchise is used by less than I per cent. of those of our overseas citizens eligible to vote here. Do the arrangements made in 1985 offer a fair deal to our citizens overseas?

Mr. Tony Banks: Voting is a voluntary activity. If overseas citizens are not voting, that is their right. Perhaps the Home Secretary will start looking at the number of people in this country who do not


vote and change the way in which our voting procedures are organised. Perhaps he will think about supporting my idea for compulsory voting.

Mr. Hurd: That is not the issue. The question is whether, because of our caution, we have hemmed in these new overseas voters so that they are reluctant, because of restrictions, to exercise their right. We need to examine that question, just as the Bill does.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is a difference between registration and voting and that the Opposition parties have consistently and rightly supported drives against under-registration in the United Kingdom as a whole, so logically they should also support attempts to make registration easier for United Kingdom citizens abroad, too?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. He has made his point neatly.
We have received emphatic replies on the question whether the existing restrictions are excessive. Much of what the overseas voters say is borne out by the full response that I received to the consultation paper issued on the subject last spring.
Change is needed in two basic respects. The first is the discouraging five-year cut-off, with its automatic denial of democratic rights after an arbitrary period. The second is the cumbersome bureaucracy which, as a result of our caution in 1985, we have imposed on our citizens abroad who want to vote in our elections. Some of those bureacratic burdens, notably the requirement to seek attestation of all first applications from a British consular office, are in secondary legislation. We shall in due course seek the consent of the House to reduce those burdens and, where practicable, to remove them altogether. Where we can help our citizens abroad, for example, by sending them annual reminders of the need to register, rather as is done for domestic electors, we shall do so, and clause 5 would enable me and my right hon. Friends to require electoral registration officers to do that.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Has the right hon. Gentleman estimated the cost of imposing that duty on electoral registration officers? What is the basis of his assertion about the number of those people who might be entitled to vote if they registered?

Mr. Hurd: I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to deal with the hon. Gentleman's second point. On the first point, we have made a calculation—but it may not be exact. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to question it, he should do so. I doubt that he would seriously be able to undermine our estimate.
I turn to the main provisions of the Bill and the fundamental question of where the cut-off for overseas voting should be set: for how many years should a British citizen be able to reside overseas and still be able to cast his vote in our parliamentary elections? I readily acknowledge that there cannot be a precise or objective answer. A balance must be struck between the claims and interests of those who have been abroad for a long time but have retained close and continuing connections with Britain and those who cut adrift from such links much earlier.
In 1985, we took an ultra cautious, tentative approach and set the limit of five years. Following our experience of the system, we can now see that many of the fears expressed at that time were misconceived. Perhaps they overlooked the extent to which a system requiring annual registration is self-regulating. Some hon. Members,. especially on this side of the House, who responded to our consultation paper strongly argued that there should be no time limit, as is the case in several other major democracies. That is an arguable point of view with which I have much sympathy. We should try to get a reasonable view after listening to as many opinions as possible. We should not ram through legislation against such strongly held views. I recognise the strength and sincerity of the view that we must draw the line somewhere and that the constituency link is not infinitely elastic.
The Bill proposes a limit of 25 years, which would enfranchise citizens working on longer-term contracts abroad who intend, as many do, to retire to the United Kingdom. The Bill will include, by and large, citizens who, encouraged by successive Governments, have gone abroad to work for international and world development organisations, to advance British economic interests as private business men or to pursue careers in European Community institutions. It will recognise the rights of thousands of British citizens across the globe who, through modern communications, cheaper air fares and a genuine affection for their country, maintain strong links with the United Kingdom. Many of them have family and friends, property, children at school and are often liable for payment of taxes here. They may be business men, journalists, teachers or officials, voluntary workers, missionaries or church workers.
I remember the first debate that I attended on this subject, when the Labour party held the view that such people were lotus eaters. I remember the former Labour Leader of the House, now Lord Glenamara, using that phrase. I hope that we have moved on and that Labour Members will not argue that the people whom we have enfranchised in a rather timid and tentative manner should be described and denounced as lotus eaters.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: The Secretary of State said that the limit is to be increased from five to 25 years. Given that within 25 years there will probably be at least two boundary changes in a constituency, is the Secretary of State satisfied that people living abroad will have sufficient links with constituencies to know in which constituency to register? Registration by overseas citizens is voluntary, contrary to the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), whereas registration for people living in Britain is not. It is illegal not to register to vote in this country, so therefore there is a distinction. I accept the generality of the Secretary of State's argument for the 25-year limit, but will electoral rolls be accurate, bearing in mind the fact that registration officers do not keep them for 25 years?

Mr. Hurd: Registers are available. The hon. Gentleman is neglecting the fact that overseas citizens will have to register every year. The extent of contact will vary from case to case, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's objection is sound because they will be maintaining


contact by registering every year. We should not disenfranchise them because they have lived abroad for 15 or 20 years rather than five years.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
I can understand the argument for having no time limit. I used to accept the argument for a tight limit, which was the mood of the House four years ago. I hope that we have moved on and that the House will agree, in the light of experience, that clause 1 strikes the right balance. I hope that it will be accepted in that spirit.

Mr. David Winnick: Many hon. Members believe that it is absurd that anyone who has been away from Britain for 25 years should be able to vote. Is there not also the question of their commitment to the United Kingdom? Under the law as it currently stands, for them to be able to vote they must show that they do not intend permanently to live outside Britain. That provision is to be dropped. Such people pay no taxes to the Exchequer, so why should they be entitled to vote here?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member has returned to the lotus-eating argument, which I hoped had been disposed of many years ago. His approach is deeply old-fashioned because it does not take into account changes in society. Thousands of people have been encouraged to move abroad by the Government and for business reasons. In the old days, it was thought that the only people who should be allowed to vote were diplomats and soldiers of the British Army of the Rhine. That is the old-fashioned concept to which the hon. Gentleman is sticking. Most overseas citizens have links here and will return to Britain at the end of their working lives. The world has moved on, and in future people will increasingly work overseas. To dismiss such people as having lost their connections with or loyalty to Britain is a deeply obscure and reactionary point of view.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: For tax purposes, what will happen if people sell their businesses overseas, thereby escaping capital gains tax? Has a determination been made regarding their tax liabilities or responsibilities? Does not the Bill have implications for final estate duties? Does registering to vote determine where one's heart or one's residence is?

Mr. Hurd: I shall not follow my hon. Friend down that byway. We made it perfectly clear in 1985, and we do so again now, that there is no connection between British tax laws and the provisions of the Bill.
I mentioned earlier the denial of democracy that is inherent in the present arrangements. That denial is especially obvious—I think that this is a quirk—in the exclusion from the right to vote of young people who, through no fault of their own, were not registered to vote when they went abroad or were taken abroad by their parents. It was clear from the consultation exercise that it is common ground that we can and should enfranchise that group of people. Clauses 2 and 3 seek to do just that.
Clause 4 deals with a matter that has already been mentioned in interventions—the requirement for the applicant to make a statutory declaration about his future place of residence. Many of our citizens abroad have objected, understandably, to making such a declaration. It

was never connected with tax, but many of them thought that it was. That view was reflected by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). In the light of experience, we cannot see much point in having that declaration. It cannot be verified one way or the other by the person considering the application. It is a symbolic gesture, and if it has any effect at all, it is only that it might allow a dishonest person to vote while preventing an honest person from doing so. It adds only nuisance value to the procedures, and the Bill would abolish it.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way because he will not be here at the end of the debate and I am anxious to push him on these points. Taxation is crucial. Ministers and the Prime Minister have stood at the Dispatch Box and, with regard to local government changes, have said that whether someone pays rates influences the policies for which he votes at local elections. One justification for the poll tax was the fact that so many people are out of the rating system. In other words, voting must accompany the payment of taxes. The Home Secretary's argument today is the reverse of that. People who do not pay taxes will still be able to vote for policies to which they will be making no financial contribution. That is a complete reversal of what Ministers have insisted should apply in local government and it is now to be applied to central Government.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is attacking the whole concept of overseas voting. But that concept has been established for several years and it is not seriously contested in the House. The hon. Gentleman is mounting a rearguard and reactionary opposition to something that has been on the statute books for some time. There has never been a connection between the existence of this franchise since 1985 and the taxation laws. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to object if we tried to make such a connection. That connection has not existed and the Opposition are not about to propose one. We are talking not about a new principle today, but about the ramifications and restrictions which in the past have hedged in the principle of the overseas franchise.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way as he will not be here for the wind-up.
The Home Secretary referred to democracy and extending the franchise. Why will he not come clean with the House? Under the existing legislation, there are 500,000 target voters overseas. Under the new proposals in this Bill, there will be 2 million target voters. That is what the Bill is all about. The Government want to enhance the number of votes that the Conservative party will get at the next and subsequent general elections. All this stuff about democracy is a charade. Why will not the Home Secretary come clean?

Mr. Hurd: That is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. I do not know why he is so defeatist. I thought that the Labour party was in a rather more confident mood. The assumption that Labour is going to lose, or fail to gain all the votes of the officials in the Commission, is strange. I thought that the Commission was now Labour's particular buddy. I advise the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) to have a little more confidence in his prospects and his capacity to enlist the votes of


Commission officials and the children of missionaries. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has not really edified the House.
The other main purpose of the Bill is contained in clause 6, which sets a new limit on candidates' expenses at by-elections for seats in this House. I gave an assurance in a written answer on the day that I presented this Bill that the new limit is without prejudice to the outcome of a longer-term review that I have set in hand, and I repeat that assurance now. I also repeat, as I said in the written answer that appears in Hansard of 21 June, that the review will cover general election expenses as well as by-election expenses. I am preparing a consultation paper which will enable me to seek the views of political parties and election registration officers on the question of election expenses at general elections, by-elections and European elections. We will need a little time to glean views and bring forward sensible proposals.
Meanwhile, the Bill recognises what all hon. Members recognise: the intensity of campaigning at modern parliamentary by-elections and the need to set realistic limits for them. The Bill does that. It applies to parliamentary elections throughout the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, proposals for some easing of the regulations covering consular attestation of overseas electors' declarations will be brought before the House in due course. At the same time, we will try to meet another point and seek the consent of the House to lighten the burden of attestation—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West is listening—which three years ago we placed on holidaymakers and others applying for the absent voting facilities provided by the Representation of the People Act 1985.
On those terms, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Stuart Randall: This Representation of the People Bill is short and contains only six clauses. However, it is important. What is the Government's motive in introducing the Bill now? There is a commitment to the Bill in the Conservative party manifesto. In addition, the Bill's title suggests that it is about improving the representation of the people. In part, I believe that that is true. However, I believe that the Government's main purpose is very party political. As I said in an intervention earlier, they want to increase the number of votes cast for the Tory party at the next and subsequent general elections.
In the Bill, the Government extend the franchise for British citizens, many of whom have lived outside the United Kingdom for some considerable time and do not have any intention of returning to live here. Many of them do not pay British taxes and their links with the United Kingdom are minimal. I believe that many of them are out of touch with the political situation in this country.
The Conservative party believes that many of the expatriates intend to vote Conservative instead of Labour. If we accept that assumption, then it is clearly in the interests of the Conservative party to maximise the number of British citizens living overseas who are eligible to vote.
In the Representation of the People Act 1985, arrangements were made for British citizens to vote while

they are out of the country on holiday. Again, the thinking conveyed by many Conservatives at that time was that better-off people tend to vote Conservative and better-off people tend to go overseas for their summer holidays. Therefore, a drive to get absent voters to vote in a general election was seen by many people to be a net vote winner for the Conservative party.
I believe that there are two major elements to the Bill. It extends the period that a British citizen may live overseas and qualify as an elector from five years to 25 years. Not only may those citizens have lived out of the country for much of their lives, they will also no longer be expected to demonstrate that they ever intend to return to live in the United Kingdom. Clearly that will embrace a number of people, many of whom will have severed their links with Britain. Many will be married to nationals of the country in which they reside and will perhaps have children who may be receiving education in that country. Their children may be married themselves, and there may be grandchildren. Similarly, those British citizens' children may have careers in the other country. Those citizens will feel locked in for good in the other country and they will never return to Britain. I have friends who are in that position.
Those people have made their choice of life styles. I cannot see why we should extend a franchise, as the Bill suggests, to all those people, without exception, which will enable them possibly to determine the type of Government in this country when to all intents and purposes their lives are unaffected by the type of Government in this country.
I believe in principle that the British citizens who reside in this country and who must put up with the consequences of the policies of a Government—Labour or Conservative—should determine the political complexion of the Government who are elected as a result of a general election. At the same time, I believe that British citizens who live abroad temporarily—for a limited period—should have the right to vote.
The other main element of the Bill is the extension of the franchise to young people who, when they resided in the United Kingdom, were unable to have their names added to the electoral register because they were too young to vote. A possible consequence of that measure is that many young people who might have resided in the United Kingdom only for a matter of weeks or even days and who can know very little about the United Kingdom will now be entitled to vote and determine the kind of Government that we have in this country. Many young people live in countries in which local newspapers report only what the British Government do and rarely report on Opposition parties in any detail. Such young people would invariably vote in the same way as their parents, and that is what the Tory party is banking on.
We should take account of two criteria when considering political representation for British citizens. First, as a fervent democrat, I believe that we should always do all that we can to encourage people to vote. We have fought for our democratic system for hundreds of years. We must protect it, reform it and nurture it to take account of changes in our society and the world about us. I am sure that all hon. Members would support that objective.
The second criterion is that those who are granted a vote should intend to reside in the United Kingdom after their stay overseas. Why should we do what the Bill seems to propose—which is to give the vote to people who have,


perhaps, emigrated for good and are probably out of touch with what is going on, or people who abuse Britain by becoming tax exiles? Why should we spend public money encouraging such people to have their names included on the electoral register? There are exceptions—perhaps not many—to the general rule laid down in the Bill. I hope that the details will be carefully looked at in Committee.
As a result of the Representation of the People Act 1985, the number of people throughout the world who registered in 1987 reached only about 11,000 or 12,000, as the Home Secretary said. Clearly, that number is not very high, and it certainly fell short of the 500,000 target for which some Conservatives hoped.
I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us the Government's estimate of the number of people throughout the world who will be enfranchised by the Bill. Will he confirm that his Department is using an estimate based on the international passenger survey of 2 million people who now become eligible to register as a result of the Bill? If the number of people who are enfranchised by the Bill were substantially to increase, it is possible that our general election campaigns will no longer be limited to the British Isles.
It has been reported that the Conservative party bought a mailing list as part of a drive to persuade 100,000 people living abroad to register in 1987, in time for the last general election. However, that measure fell flat and only a small number of people registered as a result of the Conservative party's appeal. After 1992, when we can expect many more British people to live in EEC countries, the demand for absentee voting will certainly increase. If the Government increase the number of possible voters further still by extending the franchise, both the Labour and Conservative parties could be supported by their sister political parties on the continent in canvassing political voters. In some ways, that may sound fanciful, but, if the number of registered voters is sufficiently large—perhaps about 2 million—it is possible that campaigning for a general election might have that new emphasis. I am not sure whether that is a desirable trend. Do the Government wish to encourage it?
The extended franchise in the Bill could result in new methods of campaigning for votes in a country such as the United States. A large number of British citizens emigrated to the United States of America over a considerable number of years. Many of them have retained their British citizenship and would be able to register to vote in British general elections. One can envisage certain United States or international businesses based in the United States contacting potential voters to encourage them to vote in a certain way. Do we as politicians wish to encourage that kind of external interference in our political and democratic processes? The data bases exist and the mail-shot technology is well-established. Does the Minister agree that such interference could be a consequence of the Bill? I should be interested to know whether the Conservative party wishes to encourage it. Clearly, there are two sides of the coin, and I wonder whether the Conservative party has fully thought them through.
As the Home Secretary suggested, clause 1 extends to 25 years the period during which British citizens may be registered as voters under the 1985 Act. Why have the Government introduced such a jump from five to 25 years? What does the Minister regard as the quantitative and qualitative benefits of such changes? Clause 2 extends the

franchise to British citizens overseas who could not register in the United Kingdom because they were under age. Clause 2(1) states that a condition for being able to vote is that
he was last resident in the United Kingdom within the period of twenty-five years
What does that mean? The Minister is a lawyer and he is well versed in these matters. A woman could come to the United Kingdom, have a baby and then, a few weeks or months later, return overseas. Would the baby have resided here? Would he eventually qualify to vote? In the context of the Bill, what is a resident? The Representation of the People Act 1918 states that a resident should be ordinarily resident. If the parents are on the electoral register, does it mean that the baby could be regarded as ordinarily resident?
Electoral law relies on discretion. Therefore, we must tighten up that important part of the Bill so that we make it absolutely clear what residence means. There are no definitions in the Bill. Clearly, that is a matter to which the Standing Committee will give attention. That is especially important as electoral law is rarely tested in the courts.
One question that arises from extending the franchise for overseas people is how the Tory party will stimulate the latent vote. I hope that the Minister will confirm that. the Government will not abuse their position by producing more so-called Government information leaflets to encourage people overseas to vote Conservative. If the Government are so keen on extending the franchise, did the Minister consider giving the vote to certain aliens who are settled in the United Kingdom? At least they know what is going on politically and they can make value judgments before casting a vote.
Clause 4 abolishes the requirement for British citizens overseas to declare that they intend to return to the United Kingdom so that they can register to vote. That means that the vote will be given to people who have left the United Kingdom and, perhaps, intend never to return. When people live overseas for long periods they usually do not pay United Kingdom income tax. Should we take a leaf out of the book of the Americans who, during the war of independence in 1776, said that there should be no taxation without representation? Does the Minister consider that for many of the tax exiles who have given up Britain to live overseas there should be no representation without taxation? If these tax exiles pay tax they should, by right, have a vote. Does not the Minister agree that this is a reasonable criterion for extending the representation of these people?
Clause 5 enables—

Mr. Maclennan: I am listening with growing disbelief to the Labour party spokesman suggesting that there should be some kind of property qualifications for the British citizen. Is that really his intention? Obviously, only those with property worth a certain amount will be in a position to pay taxes.

Mr. Randall: I am saying that the way in which this Bill is worded makes it open ended, with loose definitions. I am suggesting that we should considerably tighten up the Bill's wording. The point which I have just made about residency is one good example of a massive loophole. If we do not tighten it up, it will create great difficulties in this kind of electoral law.
Clause 5 enables annual reminders to be sent to overseas electors. I presume that these would be similar to


the forms that we receive in the United Kingdom from our individual returning officers. In principle, we must support that notion, but will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary give the House the cost of doing so?
The Home Secretary did not respond to the intervention of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Will he give us the cost of implementing this proposal? Will officials chase up people to return their forms as they do in the United Kingdom, and what will be the cost?
Clause 6 increases the limit on candidates' election expenses for by-elections, In principle, we welcome the increased level for three reasons. First, by-elections have tended to become national events, not merely to do with a particular constituency. Clearly, that implies extra costs for political parties. Secondly, the growing sophistication of campaigning in by-elections—for example, the extensive use of computer data banks—means that all parties incur greater costs during the highly competitive by-elections which must be catered for. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, the political parties must remain within the electoral law at all times. We must not create pressures for parties to adopt imaginative accounting methods in order to keep within the strict financial limits.
The increase is a stop-gap measure. I hope that the Government will carry out a much more comprehensive review of election expenses at by-elections.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I have known the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) for a number of years, and I never expected to hear from him one of the most reactionary and fuddy-duddy speeches I have ever heard in the Chamber. It was quite apparent, even from his comments about it being primarily Conservative voters who take overseas holidays, that he is probably not even in touch with his own constituents who, I bet my bottom dollar, go to Spain, Italy and France for their holidays. Good luck to them.
I was hardly surprised that the new-found internationalism of the Labour party lasted not one minute beyond 15 June. It has suddenly developed an antipathy to people from our country who choose to work overseas to create wealth for this country and jobs for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I am sure that he has many manufacturing companies in his constituency which are proud of their exports. Those exports could not be successfully competed for abroad if there were no salesmen and technical back-up teams overseas. This, above all, is one of the arguments against the five-year rule.
There is a logical argument which says that once people have retired they may not have the vote. However, anyone who works and lives overseas for five, 25 or 30 years has an important link with the United Kingdom. When talking to many of our citizens overseas, I find that they keep closely in touch with home and many of them subscribe to local papers. Sometimes, they are more informed about events at home than many people in this country.
I certainly welcome the Bill. It also helps to rectify the unjustified distinction that currently exists between Crown servants and people working in the European Commission, the European patent office or private

business. It is plainly absurd that someone who has spent a lifetime in the diplomatic service overseas is, under current legislation, regarded as having close links and a permanent vote in the United Kingdom, while someone working in the European patent office is not.
A number of British citizens abroad pay taxes to the United Kingdom. That is particularly true of those who have retired from local government, the police and the Civil Service who have their tax deducted at source. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West seems to make no distinction between the groups, and I find that strange.

Mr. Randall: I accept that those people pay taxes and in my speech I attempted to clarify that. The Bill is worded in such a way as to convey a blanket statement which embraces all people. In Committee we must introduce amendments to make it clear so that those people to whom the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred will not be penalised.

Mr. Jones: I do not accept that there should be a link between paying taxes and voting. I simply refute what the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends said, in apparently disparaging terms, about many of our citizens who live overseas and have various connections with the United Kingdom.
I am conscious that other Members wish to speak so I shall not detain the House too long. I wish to refer to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend about postal votes in the United Kingdom. They are important and the present arrangements are unsatisfactory in a number of regards. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at ways to make the attestation much simpler. There is no doubt that people have found it difficult to understand and it has imposed an incredible burden on returning officers who, to all intents and purposes, have been unable to make checks. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at other problems in the postal voting system at the same time.
There are far too many acting returning officers and registration officers who insist on absent voters in the elderly or incapacitated category having to declare from exactly which illness or condition they are suffering, rather than simply allowing them to state that they are unable to travel to the polling station because they have difficulty walking. That approach is too intrusive because some people may be suffering from diseases some of which may be terminal and would not want them disclosed on the forms that are available to the political parties and registration officers. It would be to everyone's benefit if we could create a much simpler system of postal vote applications.
We have a unique opportunity to try to bring our citizens in line with those of many of the other European countries and beyond. Socialist Governments in France and elsewhere seem to have no difficulty in allowing such an approach to be taken towards their citizens abroad. It seems extraordinarily insular for some Opposition Members, though not all, to take an entirely different view.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: This debate has certainly given us an extraordinary indication of how far the Labour party has strayed from its original desire to see adult suffrage extended throughout this country. We listened to an appalling


statement from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) which showed not only a total lack of knowledge of the historical roots of the Labour party, but of the present day world in which we live. To suggest that expatriates are ignorant of what is going on in this country shows a lack of awareness of the modern means of communication and is a slur on many of our citizens who are great patriots and live abroad in the service of this country. Many of them take a closer interest in what is happening here than do a number of citizens living closer to home.
The suggestion by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that it was in some way undesirable to conduct a domestic election abroad, or to inform British citizens about the issues on which a general election was being fought, is surely unworthy of serious support. Labour policy as expressed by the hon. Gentleman seems to be to encourage a tax connection between overseas voters and this country, but many people who live overseas are not particularly well off, and the nexus between tax and voting in parliamentary elections has never had the Labour party's support before. The hon. Gentleman has made an appalling, reactionary statement, which I think would come to public notice were it not for the apparent lack of press interest in the debate, notwithstanding its importance.
That leads me back to a question that I put—perhaps not very clearly—to the Home Secretary in an intervention. How important will the extension of the franchise be? There has been a broad variation in the estimates of the number of people who will he affected, which have ranged from half a million to 2 million.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Our estimate is that the number will not exceed 2 million, although we are not sure of the precise figure.

Mr. Maclennan: That is very significant: it suggests a substantial addition to the electoral roll, and I consider that highly desirable if the voters are citizens of this country. It is bound to have cost implications, however, and the Minister will probably want to mention those when he winds up the debate.
The 1985 Act was a cautious Act. The rule requiring citizens to have lived abroad for no longer than five years was particularly restrictive, and did not reflect the fact that many people who work abroad do so in cycles lasting considerably longer than that. The Government were right to extend the period, but any such restriction is bound to be somewhat arbitrary, and the choice of 25 years is clearly that. The Home Secretary said that he had toyed with the idea of imposing no such temporal restriction, and I feel that there is a good case for that, as people who fall on the wrong side of the 25-year boundary may have just as good a claim to be registered as voters as those who fall just on the right side. The drawing of such lines is certain to create anomalies.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman want retrospective votes?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to contribute: I do not intend to speak for long.
The Government's decision to simplify the procedures is sensible, as procedures were partly responsible for

defeating the intent of the earlier Bill. The declaration of intention to return to this country strikes me as a particularly pointless requirement, which we do well to dispense with. It would be fairly simple for someone who was sufficiently keen to vote to make such a declaration, and it would be impossible to judge whether it was valid.
I entirely support the Government's proposals relating to those who leave the United Kingdom before they are old enough to vote. The general principle of extending the franchise in this manner is, I believe, right and just. I do not consider most people who live abroad to be parasites; in my view, they are hard working, and many contribute to the promotion of this country's commercial and diplomatic objectives. Without their work the United Kingdom would be more insular and out of touch with the rest of the world than any of us would wish. There are lotus eaters living on these islands, but no one suggests that they should be subjected to a test of whether they serve the nation. Many of us could nominate categories of such people, but it would be intolerable to do so, and it is equally nonsensical to categorise people living abroad in the same way.
The increase in parliamentary by-election expenses takes account of the considerable pressures faced by all political parties fighting such elections, which have become increasingly national events. The risk of a formal breach of the law is very great, and legislation should take account of that. I hope that this measure will enable the law to be enforced more severely than it has been on occasions in the past.
Broadly speaking, I welcome the Government's proposals.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Let me start at the end of the Bill with clause 6, which deals with by-elections. I do not believe that anyone who has been within 100 miles of the organisation of a by-election in the last decade can say with hand on heart that the law has been observed in relation to the expenses of virtually any serious candidate. Raising the limit will not cost the parties a penny more. The money has already been spent, and we all know it. This measure is long overdue.
I am disappointed, however, that the Government have not taken the opportunity to rectify a problem that we thought we had got rid of by raising the deposit for parliamentary candidates. I do not agree with such deposits in any case—I think that signatures should be used instead—but one of the reasons for raising the deposits was to cut out the non-serious candidates. Winning a seat in the House is not a game; its purpose should not be publicity for stunts and organisations. Raising the deposit, however, has not stopped the nonsense at by-elections, where numerous candidates for different parties simply abuse the system for free national publicity.
I think that we could have taken the opportunity to abolish the requirement for a deposit and instead demand a minimum of 500 signatures for the nomination of candidates. Personally, I would go for 1,000; 500 is a compromise. I am serious about this. Anybody who claims to be a serious candidate for this place and who cannot find 500 signatures is, frankly, playing games with the electorate. We should cut out the monetary problems facing minor parties that are serious but are bereft. of


financial support. Although I am due to be in Birmingham on Wednesday evening, I should like to be here to move an amendment to clause 6 to that effect, if I would be in order in doing so.
My intervention earlier led the Home Secretary to believe that I was against the Bill. That is not the case, and I made my position clear when we debated the subject previously. I presume that the 25-year period will date from Royal Assent. To the best of my knowledge, electoral registers have not been kept by registration officers for 25 years. That means that the information going back that far will not be available.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right in some respects, but the problem to which he refers can be met because most county or district council archives have the information. Where they have not, the registers can be obtained from the British library or from the national library of Scotland.

Mr. Rooker: I am pleased to hear that. I am happy so long as they are available. The local authority in Birmingham does not keep registers that far back, although I am aware that they are available at the central reference library or at the local studies department of the university, but one has to go through a process to obtain them. It is important that the registers are available so that the registrations can be checked. This is a serious matter concerning the right of people to vote in a constituency, and there must be a degree of certainty in the matter.
The electoral register is notoriously inaccurate. We do not debate election law and matters affecting the representation of the people often enough. Indeed, we do so only when we are obliged to do so or when there is a highly partisan issue following a change. That has not prompted this debate, but let us be clear that we are not adequately debating the Bill.
The measure has not yet been published for two clear weekends between its date of printing and Second Reading. It is being rushed through Parliament. Our normal conventions and Standing Orders are not being followed. That is by agreement, so I make no complaint, but it means that the Bill will not be scrutinised line by line and will not have a Standing Committee stage upstairs. We shall not have the chance that we would otherwise have to consider fully the way in which the electoral register works.
The electoral register can be described as a snapshot of one day. As I say, it is highly inaccurate. The poll tax register, on the other hand, is a rolling register; once one is on it, one stays on it. There is no requirement for an annual re-registration for the poll tax register. It changes only if the person's address changes.
I do not understand why our electoral registration system cannot follow the system in other western democracies. Under their system, once registered, a person remains registered until or unless there is a change of address. In Britain, particularly in the inner cities, there are enormous registration difficulties. There is massive under-registration, particularly for that one day, and that causes people to lose their vote.
I appreciate that it is easier nowadays for people to get back on to the register—if, say, somebody failed to fill in the form on the day in question—but administrative hurdles must still be surmounted. That involves getting the

necessary form, filling it in and taking it to the electoral registration office. There would be no need for that if we adopted the rolling register so that, once registered, one remained on it. Other countries do it and there is no reason why we should not do the same.
Time permits me to make only a brief reference to the question of stateless persons living in this country. Consider, for example, people who came here from the Baltic states in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Many of them have never taken British nationality. Some of them could not even pass the naturalisation test; even today their command of the English language is not that good. But they have struggled and managed to survive in this country. They will not take Soviet citizenship because they are not Soviet citizens. So they find it difficult to obtain a passport, although the Home Office goes out of its way to issue such people with special documents.
While I would not think of linking taxes with votes, we should bear in mind that those stateless persons pay their taxes in this country, and they will have to pay the poll tax because they pay rates now. They will be on the rolling register for poll tax purposes. They have lived here perhaps for decades and I do not see why provision cannot be made for them to vote in British parliamentary elections.
We in this House—by "we" I mean the two major parties—are so conservative in making electoral arrangements that it beggars belief. Why is there no provision in the Bill to get rid of the necessity for voting to occur on a Thursday? Why not allow voting at weekends? The Thursday rule is a throwback to market days when constituencies were bought and sold.
Why is there no provision in the Bill for compulsory attendance at polling stations? I refer, of course, to compulsory attendance, not to compulsory voting. In recent weeks we have seen pictures of tanks trundling over people who were fighting for the right to have a proper vote and voice in the way their country is run. People in Britian gave their lives for the vote. It is people's civic duty and responsibility at least to get off their backsides and go to the polling station. Even if they do not like the candidates on offer, they should at least register their attendance at the polling station.
If time permitted, I would explain in detail how our system of voting is archiac, unfair and undemocratic. It is long overdue for reform to bring us in line with the more modern and democratic systems that are used in most other countries. We have not exported our voting system to, say, Poland or the Soviet Union. They do not use the first-past-the-post method. By their system, a single candidate can be defeated. In Britain, a single candidate gets elected without even the need for an election.
There should be a provision in the Bill to tidy up the rules applying to the description, the six words, on the ballot paper. I was astonished to discover during the Euro-elections that Members of the European Parliament remain MEPs, in the way local councillors remain in office, up to and beyond the day of the election and are able legally to describe themselves on the ballot paper as, "Member, European Parliament". That gives an unfair advantage to certain candidates, and the rule applying to the words that may be used needs tidying up.
When I inquired into that matter, I was surprised to learn that at the last general election the Prime Minister actually had "Prime Minister" on the ballot paper. The words read, "The Conservative candidate, Prime Minister." In the five general elections that I have fought,


and reached this place, the Prime Minister in only one of them described herself as the Conservative party candidate. That was in 1983. In the two elections in 1974 and in the 1979 election she did not even describe herself as "The Conservative candidate". She described herself as the "Finchley and Friern Barnet Conservative candidate"—distancing herself at that time, when she was a member of the Cabinet, from the then Leader of the Conservative party. In those six words, no former Member of Parliament who holds a ministerial office should be entitled to display ministerial office on the ballot paper. I hope that an amendment to that effect will be made to the Bill when it is debated again next Wednesday.

Mr. David Winnick: I agreed with some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), and certainly democracy should be more valued in Britain than it is. My hon. Friend said that everyone should be under a legal obligation to attend a polling station at election time even if they did not wish to vote. I agree, and I confess that I am often disappointed when people tell me, "We never vote." Sometimes they say it almost with pride.
One thinks not only of what happened in China a few weeks ago but of the intense struggle that was fought in Britain by men and women to obtain the vote. Women went to prison and on hunger strike for the elementary right to vote. No wonder we on the Labour Benches take a different view from some people about the need to preserve, defend and value our system of parliamentary democracy. We need no lectures from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the Members of his party about our commitment to parliamentary democracy and civil liberties.
I also agreed with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr about the need for tighter restrictions at by-elections. I see no reason why such elections should become a kind of circus. The restrictions could be tighter without denying anybody the right to stand for election to Parliament. It is well known that a number of people stand at by-elections who would not dream of standing at general elections. They do so because they obtain the publicity that they would never get at a general election.
The Bill devalues democracy. I accept that many people who go abroad on contracts or with the armed services or to the EEC in Brussels have every right to retain their vote. I would be the last person to wish to take away that right to vote in national elections. We have made that clear on a number of occasions, and when the Representation of the People Act 1985 was passing through the House. The basic questions concern the number of years abroad, continued commitment to this country and whether the person intends to return to Britain. Before a Conservative Member mocks that, it should be borne in mind that that was precisely what the Government brought forward and what now exists in law. Before a person who lives abroad can vote, he must sign a declaration that he does not intend to reside permanently outside the country. The Home Secretary did not give any reason that I can accept why that should be abolished.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland gave the impression that everybody who goes abroad, for no matter how many years, does so for the best of reasons, in

the interests of Britain, but we know that that is not always so. Some of these people go to escape the law and many others to escape paying tax here. Even now, they believe that it is far better to go abroad where their tax liability will be much less than if they stayed in Britain. Have they gone abroad for the best of reasons? Should we congratulate them on that?
The Bill proposes that people who go abroad can stay for up to 25 years without any evidence of their continuing commitment to the United Kingdom or that they will ever return, and still have the vote. However, the Government argued about local elections that it was necessary to have some kind of financial commitment, through paying rates or the poll tax, before one could have the vote. They laid that down in the law. Even the poorest people, those on income support, have to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax before they have the right to vote. That was a new commitment that the Government introduced, against which we strongly argued.
The Government now propose that those who go abroad for many years, and therefore pay no tax in the United Kingdom, will still be able to vote in a general election even if they have no intention of returning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) rightly said, if a child leaves the country with his parents, when he comes of voting age, he will be able to vote even if he has never been back to the United Kingdom. The Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong on this.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the position of expatriate workers who live in a British colony. I am thinking in particular of those in Bermuda. They may have given an undertaking or signed a document saying that they have no intention of coming back to the United Kingdom, but they do not have a vote in that British colony. After they have fulfilled the residential qualifications in Bermuda they may not obtain the Bermudian status that gives them the right to vote. Many expatriates would like to continue their long-term interest in the United Kingdom and vote in United Kingdom elections but cannot do so, and the tax disincentives for them are considerable.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be able to pursue that point in Committee. I have noted what he said, but he did not convince me that our opposition to the Bill is wrong.
I am convinced that if Conservative central office thought that the Tories would lose as a result of this measure, it would not be before us now. The Tory party has come to the cynical conclusion that it will get votes from the provisions of the Bill. It may be right, and I will not challenge that. To maximise the votes that they can get from abroad, the Government have decided on this measure. The Tories would gain far more votes than the Democrats. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is being naive if he does not understand why the Bill is before us.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for drawing attention to my principled opposition to the Labour party's view.

Mr. Winnick: I am willing to concede that the hon. Gentleman has made a principled stand, but his principle is misplaced. There is no reason to take such a stand. The


points that we have made are far more principled and are far more concerned with preserving our democracy, and with our commitment to this country and its political process. This is a shabby scheme. It is understandable that the Conservative party should introduce it, but those of us who vote against it will do so with every justification.

Mr. Tony Banks: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I do not support the Bill, which smacks of international gerrymandering. The Home Secretary tried to dress it up in the language of the extended franchise, but we know that the instincts and intentions of the Government are base. They think that the Bill will extend the trawl. They will be going out looking for the international redneck vote to supplement the miserable performance that they are fully expected to have at the next general election.
I listened carefully to the Home Secretary, who said that not enough people were voting under the existing system for overseas voters introduced by the Representation of the People Act 1985. Roughly 500,000 people overseas are eligible to vote. Something like 13,000 of them voted in the 1987 election. As I said to the Home Secretary, voting is a voluntary act. I do not know why 500,000 people minus 13,000 did not turn up to vote.

Mr. Rooker: Is my hon. Friend aware that, out of the 500,000 who registered, only about 2,000 actually voted?

Mr. Banks: The statistic that I saw in the Library a little while ago suggested that the 13,000 voted. Let us not quibble. If 500,000 people were registered, only a small number decided to vote under the existing system. One would have thought that the Home Secretary would try to get the additional people to register and vote instead of saying that he will make it easier for people to register by having fewer restraints. There are no restraints on up to 500,000 voting anyway, so we are now looking for the greater number of up to 2 million who may register as a result of the changes proposed in the Bill, and thus be eligible to vote. We do not know how many will vote.
This is absurd. If we looked at this logically, we would be asking about the franchise here and about the 30 per cent. of people who were eligible to vote at the last general election but did not. Why do we not lower the voting age, or declare a public holiday on polling day? Why do we not try to get through the House compulsory voting? Why do we not change the voting procedures? Why do we not have run-off campaigns between the candidates so that whoever ends up as Member of Parliament speaks for over 50 per cent. of the constituency? Why do we not have postal votes for everybody? One could go on talking about the way to tap into the extra 30 per cent. of people who do not vote in a general election, but no Conservative Member makes that proposal.
I support the proposal that British citizens overseas in the diplomatic service, in the armed services or on short-term contracts should have their right to vote while working overseas because they are showing a continuing long-term commitment to this country. When people have effectively emigrated and have not the slightest intention of coming back, I do not see why I should be expected to

support their right to vote for a Government whose economic and social policies will not affect them. We are talking about tax exiles. We are talking about people who have put two fingers up to this country because they do not want to have anything to do with it. They have said, "We are clearing off. We will go abroad and live off our ill-gotten gains." Those are the sort of people who will be in the extended categories.
Taxation is crucial if one is living overseas. It is not crucial here. If someone lives in this country, he is living under the laws that have been passed by the Government. Taxation is not crucial in this country but a person who lives overseas, with no intention of coming back, and who pays no taxes in this country should not have the right to vote for policies which will never cost him anything and which will never affect him economically or socially.

Mr. Allason: rose—

Mr. Banks: I will not give way. I will be sitting down in a few moments so that we may vote by 7 o'clock.
The Prime Minister herself has said that, unless people are contributing to local taxes and rates, they will not act responsibly in the way that they vote at local elections. If it is good enough for the Prime Minister to use that argument, to which we are opposed, I do not see how the Government can try to take the reverse position in regard to those who live overseas, who have no intention of coming back to this country and who pay no taxes or rates here.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North. I am no narrow-minded nationalist, but I am damned if I will support the right of tax exiles to vote for policies in this country. The Government see this as a way of trawling round the country looking for the redneck vote. It will not do them any good at the next election. In the meantime, I am opposed root and branch to the proposals in the Bill.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The importance of the measure was displayed by the Minister who stated that potentially there were 2 million votes involved. That means that over 3,000 votes might be involved per constituency at a time when the electoral register is in collapse because of the poll tax. There are 76 constituencies in England where the electorate has dropped by more than 1,000 in the last year, including a drop of 2,170 in Finchley which, according to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, is not due to demographic reasons, but must have something to do with registration. In a letter to me the only explanation offered by the Prime Minister for the registration figures not being as high as they should be is the September 1988 postal strike. That is an unfortunate explanation which does not apply to the position in Scotland where there was a similar collapse in registration in the major cities between the general election of 1987 and 1988. Therefore, the poll tax is relevant to the Bill.
I am concerned about the low priority that is being given to this important legislation. It is not just, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), the representative of the SLD, said, that the press are not here; many hon. Members are not here either. The Bill is being rushed through, hopefully for some, in less than two hours. We are not giving it the consideration that major


constitutional legislation should have. The Secretary of State, who introduced the Bill, has left the House. With all respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), we are leading with the reserves. It is an important measure which should be discussed in prime time.
The Representation of the People Act 1985 was discussed at considerable length during 1984 and 1985. It was of wider scope than the present measure but Labour voted against it on Second Reading. Considerable time was spent on it in a Committee of the whole House. Only when certain amendments were introduced was there agreement not to vote against it on Third Reading. All the concessions made at that stage for overseas voters are being overridden. The position is even worse. Clause 1 extends from five years to 25 years the period during which people can pick up electoral registration overseas. The original proposal in 1984 was seven years, but it was amended to five years; now it is to be 25 years.
Under existing legislation people who were under 18 when they left this country are excluded. That condition is being removed. A person who left the country as a babe in arms may, 18 years later, qualify for registration and may vote in English elections, yet some people in this country will be excluded from their birthright by the operation of the poll tax which deters them from being not just on the poll tax register but on the linked electoral register.
The minimal requirement of a declaration that a person did not intend to reside permanently outside the United Kingdom is being abolished. People will not even have to say that they intend to return here at some stage. We should ask who should he on the electoral register and what principles should he involved. People should be involved with the nation and should participate in its affairs. They should be concerned about the services that are provided because they benefit from them.
I do not accept the principle of no representation without taxation which operates in regard to the poll tax. Everybody within a society should be entitled to vote as a birthright, but we have to decide what a society is. Society does not mean that a person leaves the country, settles in another area and devotes himself to that nation where he will develop interests distinct from his interests here. Someone who settles overseas is bound to become more involved with the interests of the country where his children are growing up.
The explanatory and financial memorandum refers to the costs of registering overseas electors. If there was a decent principle, I would not quibble about the cost because we cannot put too high a price on democracy. We should be willing to spend any amount to ensure that people have the franchise. It will cost £1.72 to register an overseas elector and 62p each year to maintain registration. That expenditure can be contrasted with the failure of the Government to try to stimulate electoral registration in this country through advertising.
Expenditure on advertising by the Home Office to encourage electoral registration amounted to 0.31 per cent. of total Government advertising expenditure in the past year. We should contrast that with the expenditure of more than £6 million by Abbey National in its campaign to encourage people to exercise their vote on the society becoming a plc. Abbey National was not allowed to ask people to vote yes, but it encouraged full use of the franchise. Should we not encourage full registration of electors? Should we not get rid of poll tax legislation which

for the first time has introduced the principle of no registration without taxation? That principle applies in Chile where, at the recent referendum, in order to register people had to pay an amount equivalent to one month's money on an employment scheme, as a result of which many of the Chilean working class did not have a vote. The vote against Pinochet would have been much greater but for the financial constraints on people.
The poll tax is creating a similar situation in Britain. For the first time since the franchise was extended universally—in 1918 for all men and in 1928 for all women—there will be a tax on those who qualify to vote. A similar situation applied in the 19th century and before 1918 when we had the 40 shilling vote and other fancy franchises.
Those are the types of measures that we should be considering in a Bill such as this. We should be discussing my Re-enfranchisement of the People Bill, which would detach the poll tax register from the electoral register, rather than the nonsense before us today.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am shocked that we should be debating a Bill such as this which basically shows the Tory party's deep concern for its future. It has to scrabble round the world looking for tax dodgers, crooks, thieves and wastrels, anywhere that it can, in order to get a Tory Government re-elected in two years' time. That is what the Bill is about. It has nothing to do with democracy.
The Home Secretary has given us an eloquent testimony of his commitment to democracy by clearing off the minute that he finished his speech. He may have gone abroad; I do not know. Perhaps he has gone to see a tax exile. There is something disgraceful and distasteful about the Bill.
If the Government were serious about ensuring that democracy in Britain worked properly, they would not have pushed through the poll tax which has taken thousands of people off the register. The London Central European constituency had 40,000 fewer voters two weeks ago than it had in 1984. That was the result not of the migration of people from central London, but of fear of the poll tax. That was the reason behind the poll tax.
Local authorities are spending less and less money on voter registration and canvassing follow-ups. The voter registration system is less accurate than it used to be. The Housing Act 1988 and the activities of dodgy landlords further discourage people from registering. That has always been a problem and will continue to be one.
The Government's only answer to all the problems of non-participation in elections is to threaten people with the poll tax and offer the vote to tax dodgers living abroad. A baby born in Britain today and taken out of the country tomorrow would, after its birth had been registered and a passport issued—if that were possible in the time—be eligible to vote in British elections from 2007 until 2014, having played no part in Britain's political or economic life.
Thousands of people are denied the right to vote who are legally resident in Britain as asylum-seekers or refugees, or who have another nationality but are legally resident and work in Britain, making their contribution to society. It is not just those who pay tax who should have the vote. Those political exiles are making their


contribution to society, but they are denied the right to vote here and in their country of origin. It is monstrously unfair for us to preach democracy while denying such people the right to participate in elections.
About 15 million people across Europe, often the poorest, are suffering the ravages of economic policies pursued by Governments such as ours and are being denied any participation in a democratic process that can influence their lives. That is distasteful, and the Home Office should examine the ways in which the electoral register and the franchise in Britain could be extended to people living and contributing to society here rather than scrabbling round the world looking for tax exiles to vote for them.
The raising of the parliamentary limit on by-election campaigns is nonsense. Parliamentary by-elections have been turned into a circus by the activities of the Front-Bench spokesmen of all parties in the House and by media exposure. There is an increasing antipathy towards all political parties in by-elections because people feel that they are being taken for a ride. They feel that they are spectators in their own electoral process.
Raising the limit to about £14,000 for by-elections, plus the unit cost increase for each vote of 16.4p for every entry on the electoral register, means that by-election campaigns will cost about £20,000 or more per candidate. Multiply that by five or six candidates, and we are talking about £100,000 worth of political publicity being pushed out, often during a two-week by-election campaign. That is not a promotion of democracy, but a way of squashing and squeezing smaller third parties.
I am happy and proud to be a member of one of the two largest parties in Britain, but, as a Member of the House, I have a duty, as others have, to ensure that democracy is fair and that everyone has a right to express their point of view.
The Bill seems to be a bit obsessed with money all round. We heard at the beginning that the Government estimate an expenditure of £1.72 per overseas voter to be registered, but there is no increase for voter registration in Britain. We must consider that.
We must also consider the electoral deposit. There is a general feeling that if we increased the electoral deposit we would reduce the number of candidates and get away from irritants from third, fourth, fifth, sixth, 10th and 12th parties; that is wrong. We should not prevent people from contesting elections or submitting their name for election as a result of their inability to pay a cash deposit. If there is to be a limit, it should be based on the number of signatures in support of a candidature. At the moment that is only 10, but there is no reason why it should not be substantially increased and the parliamentary election deposit abolished at the same time.
Many hon. Members have put forward different proposals for extending and improving participation in democracy in Britain. The Bill does nothing towards that. It helps not one jot to improve democracy in Britain; it only enfranchises those who, in effect, have emigrated.

Mr. Tony Banks: Someone said earlier that he did not know where the 25-year rule came from. We know that it comes from the 1964 general election when many people upped and left the country because a Labour Government

were elected. The 25-year rule was a way of enfranchising all those who have left Britain since 1964. It is no mere coincidence.

Mr. Corbyn: There were those who, under the previous Labour Government, were paid large sums of money to write articles in the Sunday newspapers saying that they could not afford to live in Britain because of what they considered to be the penal rates of tax. I do not consider that to be a basis for re-enfranchising them. They should show some commitment to Britain by living here and contributing to our society.
I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State replies he will at least show that the Home Office has considered the points that have been made tonight. I hope that the Bill will not go forward and that we shall not extend the franchise in the way that the Government want, but that we shall extend democratic participation in Britain.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): In the course of the debate a number of hon. Members have outlined their own views about defects that they perceive to exist in our electoral system. I acknowledge that many of the problems they mentioned are not addressed by the Bill, which is narrowly focused and is intended to be so. That is why we have not sought to address the points made, for example, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) regarding the deposit and eligibility to stand.
In short, we are seeking to extend the franchise to people who hitherto have been deprived of it. The broad principle by which I stand—and I am glad that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) stands by it as well—is that British citizens should, unless there are persuasive reasons to the contrary, have the right to vote. That seems to me to be an admirable principle. We should not deprive British citizens of the right to vote unless there is an obvious and compelling reason why we should do so. That approach is adopted by most developed countries.
We live in a world in which citzens of Britain and of every other country must live abroad, or choose to do so, to work, or for an increasing number of other purposes or reasons.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: No, I shall not give way for the moment—and perhaps not at all, because my time is extremely limited.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) launched an attack on tax exiles. It is possible that among those to whom the franchise will be extended by the Bill will be people whom the hon. Gentleman calls tax exiles. However, the fact that some unworthy people may be caught in the net is not a good reason for denying a franchise to the very many worthy people who are presently denied it. People now go abroad for long periods for a whole variety of reasons. They work in international agencies, commerce and business, and they serve as missionaries or educationists. The list is endless. To describe the people who may be given a franchise by the Bill in the way that the hon. Member for Islington, North described them, as
tax dodgers, crooks, thieves and wastrels",


is deeply offensive to the many people who go abroad for wholly legitimate reasons.

Mr. Banks: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way in a moment, but I must finish this point.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland made the important point that the Labour party is, in its attitude to the Bill, departing from the standards that it has set itself for many years. Labour is saying in effect that people should not have the right to vote unless they pay tax. That argument was explicitly deployed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall)—he nods assent. If that policy were adopted, the huge majority of students who are currently entitled to vote would be denied that right. If we were to adopt the argument of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, millions of old-age pensioners who do not pay tax would also be denied the right to vote. That would be the consequence of the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman from the Labour Front Bench.

Mr. Randall: When the Minister reads the Official Report tomorrow, he will learn that I referred only to tax exiles.

Mr. Hogg: We heard otherwise from some Opposition Members, and those honourable exceptions included the hon. Member for Perry Barr. Nevertheless, the Opposition's argument against the Bill is that there should be some linkage between the obligation and the fact of paying tax and the franchise, which I do not accept in respect of parliamentary elections.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Hogg: No, not at this moment. I gave way to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West. I have enjoyed the many interventions of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but he had ample opportunity to put his point of view.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland asked a number of questions, which I shall try to answer. We do not know the number of persons who will be eligible to vote. Our best estimate is that the total will be of the order of 2 million. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were to ask me how many people we estimate will take up the franchise, I would reply that our broad calculation is 60,000. That is the figure we have in mind. In 1987, 12,000 overseas citizens registered to vote in the general election that year, but we do not know how many did so.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West made a defeatist speech in suggesting that the purpose of the Bill is to increase the number of Conservative votes. I have two comments to make on that point. First, we are taking the high moral ground that British citizens are, prima facie, entitled to vote even when they live abroad. Secondly, it is extraordinary that the Labour party should suggest that its policies are so unattractive that it will not have supporters among those living abroad. That may be right, but such a view tells us something about the Labour party. When I hear the hon. Member for Islington, North describe British citizens overseas as
tax dodgers, crooks, thieves and wastrels
I am not in the least surprised why he supposes that Labour will not receive many votes from them.
The explanatory memorandum gives information about the important aspect of costs. For local government, the cost will be £1·72p per voter initially and thereafter 62p per year. The calculations are set out in the annex to our second consultation paper that is now in the Library. Those figures have been made available to local authorities in good time, and I am pleased to report that there was no particular criticism of them. I do not claim that those figures are 100 per cent. accurate, but the order of the estimate is correct.
Hon. Members who attacked our abolition of the declaration fail to grasp what we are about. The declaration in its present form requires people to assert that they do not intend to live permanently outside the United Kingdom. No honest man can put his name to such a declaration, because such a circumstance is unverifiable. More importantly, any honest man considering whether he is capable of making such a declaration truthfully must bear in mind that his intentions may change. There is no reason why a person who is essentially honest and recognises the basic facts of life should be penalised in the way that the Opposition suggest.
The criteria affecting children are clearly set out in the Bill. Young persons will be entitled to apply to register if they were resident in the constituency during the relevant time period—and residency is a matter of fact, meaning a permanent connection—and their parent or guardian was also registered at a relevant address within the appropriate constituency. I see no lacuna in that situation.
I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion. I have not answered every hon. Member who has spoken, but I propose to do so in writing instead. The justification for the Bill is an appropriate extension of the franchise to people who should not be denied it. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 19.

Division No. 268]
[6.58 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Allason, Rupert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amess, David
Cnope, Christopher


Amos, Alan
Colvin, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cran, James


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Davies, Q. (Stamfd &amp; Spald'g)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, David
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Emery, Sir Peter


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fallon, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bowis, John
Freeman, Roger


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fry, Peter


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gow, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Budgen, Nicholas
Gregory, Conal


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butler, Chris
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carrington, Matthew
Hague, William






Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miller, Sir Hal


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moate, Roger


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayward, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Norris, Steve


Hordern, Sir Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Page, Richard


Howells, Geraint
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Irvine, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Jack, Michael
Redwood, John


Janman, Tim
Renton, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Latham, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Keith


Lightbown, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lilley, Peter
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lord, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Summerson, Hugo


McCrindle, Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Maclean, David
Thurnham, Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Trotter, Neville


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Wheeler, John


Malins, Humfrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Mans, Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Maples, John
Wood, Timothy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Yeo, Tim


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)



Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mates, Michael
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Maude, Hon Francis
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Pendry, Tom


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Pike, Peter L.


Cohen, Harry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Cousins, Jim
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas, Dick
Winnick, David


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hinchliffe, David



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Noes:


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Dr. John Marek: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was wondering whether the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) will delay his comments so that he can reply to questions from Opposition Members. Of course it is in his hands.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: indicated assent.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That seems to have been accepted by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bob Cryer: In many respects the Bill is similar to the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill that we debated last night. The statement produced by the promoters refers to the working party report that we discussed last night. That report made it clear that British Rail was working on a scheme for penalty fares based on the report. Therefore, some of the ground that we cover will be identical.
It is important to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the report which forms the basis of the legislation was drawn-up by people who may not meet the difficulties that a penalty fares scheme may produce. It was extremely difficult to get hold of a copy of the report as no copies are available in the Vote Office—although I have ordered one—and there are only two copies in the Library. That seems to be less than adequate when the Bill being debated by the House is based on that report.
The report deals with the terms of reference to examine London Regional Transport's concerns about penalty fares provisions. The working party consisted of four members of the Department of Transport, one representative from the Home Office, a representative of the Lord Chancellor's Department—curiously enough from the private and international law division—and two representatives of London Regional Transport, the solicitor and the group planning manager. It would be interesting to know whether the members of that committee travel on British Rail because the report was the basis of British Rail's calculations in making its proposals, so it is a very important document for us to consider.
7.15 pm
One of my deep regrets is that the Department of Transport did not think it fit to include in that working party any representatives of the trade unions involved. The Minister might argue that it is not usual for outsiders to be included in departmental or interdepartmental working parties. It may not be usual, but it has occurred. When the previous Labour Government were establishing the Co-operative Development Agency Act 1978, they established a departmental working party which included members from various strands of the co-operative movement, including representatives from working co-operatives organised through the industrial common ownership movement, and from the Co-operative Union. It included a very good cross-section of experience and ability.
As it was done on that occasion, I see no reason why the working party that produced the report on penalty fares could not have been similarly extended to include representatives of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association to represent the people who will administer the scheme, the NUR to represent the people in the ticket offices who will he made redundant, and ASLEF as train drivers will also be involved. If disputes occur on driver-only trains, when the travelling inspector gets on a train to check whether people have paid their fares, inevitably the communication cord may be pulled and the driver may be drawn into the argument.
It would have been useful for the working party to have included all the trade unions representing those who work for British Rail. The fact that the Government did not take the trouble to do that and chose instead to use a group of civil servants and some representatives of the management of London Regional Transport points to the deficiency in the basis of the legislation. It is also a pointer to the Government's heavy-handed attitude in imposing a scheme on British Rail.
It is a sad reflection on the managements of British Rail and London Regional Transport, who are so subservient that they cannot set their faces against those badly thought-out and designed proposals. It is an example of the way in which such schemes are imposed, just as British Rail management is attempting to impose the removal of the national negotiating rights that the NUR and ASLEF have built up over many years. The workers do not want to accept that. That is the kernel of the present dispute, which has been created entirely by the intransigence, obduracy and arrogance of the management of British Rail. Passengers who are inconvenienced should remember that it takes two sides to make a dispute, and although the weight of the press is heavily aimed against the ordinary workers on the railway system, it is the people in the offices and in the executive suites who have chauffeur-driven cars and who seldom use the railways who are creating the difficulties, the confrontation and the strike action.
That brings me back to the membership of the working party and the people who produced the scheme which has been so eagerly taken up by the British Rail management. The people who have taken up the scheme sometimes do not appear to care very much for railways. The management elite of British Rail are provided with chauffeur-driven cars, although I do not know why they should be when they are running a transport system. I suspect that they rarely travel on the system as ordinary fare-paying passengers and that they use only main-line services and the first-class section of trains when they travel on the railways, which is rare. They do not seem to be the best persons to judge what is best for the travelling passenger.
The reason for this proposal is that when the report was produced in May 1986 it was claimed that £19.5 million was lost in fare revenue, and the figure has now increased to £26 million. The promoters of the Bill will be only too keen to provide the House with information about how the calculations were made. As I understand it, the calculations relate to London Regional Transport, because the report was based on London Regional Transport. but I have no doubt that British Rail will be anxious to provide figures and the basis of the calculations of the amount lost through fare dodgers.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he used the figure of £26 million. I must correct him and point out that the figure was £36 million for Network SouthEast alone.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have made a note that the figure is £36 million for Network SouthEast alone. But where has the figure come from? I used the figure of £26 million for London Regional Transport, although, as I said, I recognise that that figure does not apply to British Rail, which covers a larger area than London Regional Transport. I am concerned about the basis on which this legislation, which will make a massive change, is put forward. We have not so far had an explanation about either London Regional Transport or British Rail. If the figure for Network SouthEast is £36 million, we should know the basis on which that figure was calculated.
The hundreds of millions of pounds of investment nationwide, the redundancies and the difficulties in collecting the penalty fares are all connected with the amount that is being dodged. I hold no brief for people who evade fares. Clearly, we want to maximise the revenue of all public passenger services to provide a better service. That means that everyone is contributing and Labour Members believe strongly in collective provision. However, having identified the problem, the Bill is not necessarily the correct solution; it may be the worst because it gives rise to a number of problems.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend. No Labour Member favours fare evasion and we want to see firm action taken against it. My hon. Friend is also right to say that British Rail has produced no proof for the figure of £36 million lost on Network SouthEast alone. Has my hon. Friend any information about that figure? Does he not think that British Rail should have substantiated it? The figure is big for so small an area. British Rail is almost accusing many people in the south-east of being crooks. That is an appalling insult and a slur on people in the south-east for which British Rail has provided no detailed information.

Mr. Cryer: I refer my hon. Friend to clause 7 of the statement on behalf of the promoters in support of consideration of the Bill, as amended in Committee. The figure quoted is £36 million, to which the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) drew attention. The figure refers to Network SouthEast alone. Unfortunately, it is given no credence and seems to have been plucked from the air by British Rail officials, who are keen that this legislation should go through so that British Rail can dispense with the services of a number of employees. British Rail management sees employment not as a valuable asset, but as a nuisance to be dispensed with at every conceivable opportunity. For several years, its policy has been to introduce driver-only trains—and it has removed signal boxes and installed automatic crossings. In every case where that has been done there have been problems, and in some cases lives have been lost.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is not British Rail making it increasingly difficult to pay one's fare because of reductions in manning? My hon. Friend knows well the East Lancashire line and the Roses line, where most of the stations are unmanned. If one is catching a train to London, it is difficult to pay for a ticket and one often finds


that one does not have enough time at Preston to pay for a long-distance fare. British Rail has also reduced manning on many trains, so one often does not have one's ticket checked. People who have no tickets do not have to pay. I have a handful of tickets that have not been clipped either because there has been no ticket collecter on the train or because he has not reached me as there are too many passengers on the train.

Mr. Cryer: As my hon. Friend knows, my wife comes from Darwen in Lancashire, so we frequently make visits across the Pennines. Colne station, which used to be staffed, has been reduced by some high-quality decision of British Rail management to a pile of rubble with a bus shelter in the middle of the platform as the only sign that there is a railway there. There are no staff to sell tickets and people have to buy their tickets on the train. That is often difficult because on crowded trains the ticket dispenser, checker and collecter cannot always get round all the coaches.
Quite apart from the basis of this legislation and the dubious claims put forward, I should have thought that if there was a national scandal of people avoiding fares, the promoters would have made available details of the number of people chased, where they came from and where they were going and the number of prosecutions for the amount of money lost. All that information should have been provided to substantiate British Rail's claims. However, we have been provided with nothing but a bald figure. That shows a certain contempt for the House because the promoters seem to assume that the Bill will be passed as a matter of course so they need not take too much trouble to delve out the information. It is possible, of course, that the promoters do not have that information and are trying, metaphorically, to bluster their way through.

Mr. Cohen: I bring my hon. Friend back to the point about the £36 million a year that British Rail claims is lost through fare evasion on Network SouthEast alone. The hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) represents a constituency that is in Network SouthEast, but right at the edge. Is British Rail saying that there are many crooks and thieves in the New Forest who refuse to pay their fares? Perhaps they voted for the hon. Member for New Forest. Should not the hon. Gentleman put his house in order in terms of his constituents? That appalling slur on those people has meant that it has fallen to the Opposition to defend them and say that they are basically honest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will bear it in mind that the debate is on the motion, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered. His remarks must relate to that motion.

Mr. Cryer: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am keen to consider the Bill.
British Rail should provide figures for our consideration. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for pointing out that we are considering the Bill. British Rail has employed sponsors—who, no doubt, are more generously provided for than British Rail employees—to

promote the Bill for our consideration. The sponsors and British Rail have not put the necessary information before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has made a good point, which no doubt the hon. Member for New Forest is bearing in mind so that he can give us information about the basis for the £36 million loss.
Labour Members believe in collective provision. We want to ensure that everyone contributes and that there are no fare dodgers. They place a bigger burden on other users of the railway service and the reduction in revenue diminishes the opportunity for investment. Naturally, we are keen that fare dodgers are caught, but is this the right way to go about it? It is not.
I do not want to go too much into the details of the King's Cross disaster because we dealt with that last night in the debate on the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill. King's Cross was an example of how fire can rapidly take hold, causing loss of life and scarring. It stunned even the most experienced and hardened fire officers. I am sure that there are British Rail stations with similar characteristics—underground passages which can act as chimneys, causing draughts that lead to potential dangers for passengers.

Dr. Marek: I wonder whether the Waterloo-City line is such an example.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to that line. Wherever there are large passageways rising at an angle potential fire traps are created.
We are talking about the installation of automatic ticket barriers. If they cannot be opened immediately fire breaks out, will passengers be in danger? British Rail may say, "That is unlikely. We have heeded all the warnings after King's Cross." No one expected the King's Cross disaster. Health and safety reports on London Underground had been ignored. ASLEF members who drew attention in a leaflet to the danger of underground fires and the hazards of travel were threatened with the sack by British Rail management. That management has introduced a new rule under which any BR employee who publicly criticises BR faces the penalty of sacking. If all those circumstances are compounded, we may find that fires start because of defective machinery and dangers arise because passengers are impeded when leaving railway premises.

Mr. Peter Snape: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend at an early stage in his interesting analysis of this measure. Is he aware that the circumstances surrounding disciplinary action may soon be worse than he envisaged? Under the proposals, in the brave new Britain of 1989, to abolish national negotiations in the railway industry, an employee who has the temerity to speak to the press about safety or any other matter could face dismissal by his area manager and have no right of appeal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I again remind the House that the debate is on the motion, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered. If it is decided in the affirmative, the House will go on to consider the amendments. I remind the House that we cannot have a broad debate on railway policy. Hon. Members can discuss whether we should debate what is in the Bill and the amendments that are to come. A broad debate would be out of order.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are debating whether the Bill should be further considered and in deploying those arguments we must consider, to some extent, the Bill's contents. I was making the point that the Bill's contents are so important that they should be further considered.
One characteristic of the Bill is the installation of automatic machinery that may impede the egress of passengers in a period of potential danger. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said that British Rail employees could not draw to the public's attention information about dangerous circumstances, even though they might have drawn it to the attention of various layers of British Rail management. An employee would be sacked it he said to a local newspaper, "This escalator is dangerous. It smokes every now and then. We have put the fires out four or five times. Something should be done about it."
In debating the motion, we should consider whether British Rail management would attempt to interfere if a British Rail employee wanted to raise these issues with his or her Member of Parliament. We must send a clear message that British Rail employee's rights should in no way be curtailed by British Rail management. They should not be prevented from going to their Member of Parliament with information about potentially dangerous circumstances placing passengers in jeopardy or about any other railway matter. Hon. Members will agree that if British Rail management attempted to intimidate employees it would be a potentially serious breach of privilege, and the House would deal with it accordingly.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend has made a good point about safety on the railways. There are differences between the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill, which we considered yesterday, and this motion. I remind my hon. Friend of Mersey Rail, which is a British Rail system. It has a tunnel going right round Liverpool, escalators going up to ground level and gates. I do not think that automatic gates will be installed there. Does my hon. Friend accept that penalty fares introduce a greater risk to safety, because of the associated hassles and controls? Does he agree that, when debating whether we should consider the Bill, one important question is whether under the Bill's provisions the railways will be safe? Will my hon. Friend address himself to that point in due course?

Mr. Cryer: The ramifications of the Bill are enormous. I wonder why the working party produced a solution for our national railway system when we have a well-tried system, to which people are accustomed, that has stood the test of time.
British Rail is using the Bill as an opportunity to get rid of employees. People are our greatest asset. We should have people on platforms checking tickets rather than automatic ticket machines. We are unclear to what extent British Rail will use the powers in the Bill, but once the legislation has been passed the necessary powers will be handed to it. We should therefore be provided with more detailed information than is contained in this sheet and a half of nine scant clauses.
We cannot leave the application of the Bill's powers to the vagaries of British Rail management, which has not always made the right decisions. I recall the introduction of automatic lights on level crossings without barriers. For

many years previously, the system was to have manned barriers at level crossings, which physically kept traffic off railways. An early consequence of the introduction of automatic lights was the Hixson level crossing disaster, which occurred because the instructions for the operation of the barriers were defective. A large transformer was caught on the level crossing by a diesel-electric locomotive, thereby causing a serious accident. I use that example to show that, when we are deciding whether the Bill should be considered further, its safety ramifications are enormous and cannot be dismissed lightly.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is on to an extremely good point. When deciding whether the Bill should be further considered, we must be guided by experience. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the Government relaxed restrictions on level crossings about 10 years ago? That did not lead to the Hixson disaster, but it led to a disaster at Lockington. Through their policies, the Government were responsible for the deaths of innocent people. Only recently have they realised the follies of their policy and introduced more barriers. We should know why the Government support the Bill. Do they believe that it will lead to public expenditure savings?

Mr. Cryer: In deciding whether we should further consider the Bill, such safety considerations must be paramount.
The policy of successive British Rail managements has been to get rid of employees. British Rail is now introducing rigid, anti-democratic rules to prevent employees from becoming involved in developing the railways. The Bill is based on the 1986 report of the working party. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East has much experience of working on the railways and is a railway enthusiast. If he were still a British Rail employee, he could not have access to the press without being threatened with dismissal. That British Rail management would not be seeking his advice and experience of many years in different operating capacities is scandalous. Thousands of British Rail employees want to provide a proper public service. They want adequate and improving standards on the railways, yet they are riot being consulted.
7.45 pm
We must consider the people who will operate under the Bill. The trains on which inspectors will be checking tickets will often be crowded. Inspectors will be involved in heated arguments and there will be difficulties and divisions. Far from improving the image of the railway network, inspectors will be facing enormous difficulties. In my area, trains on the service between Bradford interchange and Leeds and Shipley and Leeds—a station that I frequently use—are always crowded at busy times. People stand in aisles, yet British Rail is seeking powers to employ inspectors to argue with people about whether they have tickets.
The annex to the working party's report gives guidance to inspectors about how to deal with such difficulties. It is nonsense for half a dozen people in a lush room of the bureaucracy in Whitehall to discuss academically how railmen will deal amiably with fraught, anxious passengers. It does not reflect well on British Rail that it is seeking such powers.
I should like to mention how some stations are laid out. One of the platforms at Shipley, which is a triangular


station, is a considerable distance from the ticket office. Will machines be placed on all platforms or at a central booking office, such as at Shipley? If people cannot obtain a ticket because the machine is broken or because they do not have the right change, will they miss the train because they are frightened that they may be interrogated by an inspector for not having a ticket? Will British Rail operate a fairly liberal policy and readily accept people's excuses? Will it impose on passengers the same arrogant restrictive nonsense that it imposes on its employees by not allowing them to talk to local newspapers?
It is important that staff are encouraged to take a pride in the railway, and a majority of them do. I speak not as a casual observer but as the founder of the Keighley and Worth Valley railway in Yorkshire. I called its first meeting and did every aspect of work on it from plate laying to firing engines, driving engines and maintenance. I did that from 1961 and negotiated with British Rail until 1982 when pressure of public duties—alack, alas—forced me off the footplate.
I know the details involved in operating railways. I have come across many hundreds and probably thousands of railwaymen and women who exhibit enthusiasm for their network. However, under the terms of this Bill, they would be removed from stations and replaced by ticket machines. It would be preferable if we put all the ticket machines in British Rail's boardroom and got the board of British Rail out on to the stations to deal with the public. Then we might get better decisions from management.

Mr. Snape: We might get trains on Wednesdays as well.

Mr. Cryer: Yes. The National Union of Railwaymen might be able to negotiate a decent agreement which, after all, is all that it is trying to do.
In considering whether we should give further consideration to the Bill, we must bear in mind the removal of staff from stations. In our further consideration of the Bill, we cannot exclude other legislation because all this links together. For example, the Social Security Bill contains new regulations requiring people to show that they are actively seeking work. The Opposition argued against that and said it would be difficult to show that someone was actively seeking work. We thought that the proposal was unreasonable and that the test of availability for work, which has operated for many years, was entirely adequate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman once more that the Bill has had its Second Reading. It has been amended in Committee and we are now discussing whether it should be further considered. The hon. Gentleman's points about the Social Security Bill do not arise on this Bill and he would be out of order if he were to discuss them now.

Mr. Cryer: My point is related directly to the Bill. This Bill allows penalties to be imposed on passengers who do not have tickets. I understand that British Rail will introduce automatic ticket machines throughout the length and breadth of the land and will have more open stations. Passengers will be obliged to obtain tickets.
In discussing whether the Bill should have further consideration, we must bear in mind a woman who is offered a night job which she cannot refuse because of the

legislation to which I have just referred, but which I will not mention again. It would be dangerous for a woman to work at night if she had to travel on British Rail. The recent employment legislation has removed the protection that prevented women from being employed at night.
I understand why you objected to my previous line of argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At first sight, the legislation to which I referred and this Bill do not appear to be linked. However, further consideration of the Bill must involve other legislation because its effects might mean that a woman who had finished night work might require assistance on a station platform late at night. She might hear footfalls in the dark and be afraid. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are as concerned as I am about the increase in violence since the Government came to office in 1979. Many women are worried about it. A woman coming off night duty might seek assistance and could expect help in a staffed station. However, this Bill will remove staff from stations.
Occasionally staff are not helpful. However, in the main, 99–9 per cent. of staff will help passengers. They help women with prams. They help passengers on to and off trains and they open gates. They also help disabled people. But they are going to be replaced by ticket machines.
I believe that the Bill should be deferred. Having been over the pros and cons of the Bill for only a relatively brief time, I believe that it would probably be better if the sponsor went back to British Rail and said, "I do not think the time is right for a wholesale change in the operation of British Rail."
The Bill gives powers to British Rail management. However, that management has been inconsistent in its operation and has shown itself—even before the present dispute—to be arrogant and prepared to impose its views, whatever their merits, on the rank and file staff—the train drivers, cleaners and station operators. The management's attitude has resulted in the present confrontation and strike action and I lay the responsibility for that entirely at the door of BR management—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East has just said from a sedentary position, the Government are leaning on the management. I am always worried by the way in which BR management gives in so easily to the Government and does not exercise its independent—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member. We want to get the debate off to a good start. I remind him and the House again that the Bill is concerned solely with penalty fares for people without a valid ticket. We are now considering whether this comparatively narrow Bill should be considered and whether we should get on to the amendments that have been tabled mostly by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is quite out of order to extend the debate beyond those comparatively narrow issues.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for taking so much time to give me guidance. I was tempted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East who muttered something from a sedentary position. I wanted that point to be in Hansard and I am sure that you appreciate that.

Mr. Cohen: Does my hon. Friend accept that one reason why the Bill should not be considered tonight is that British Rail is out of date in respect of modern


management trends? I draw my hon. Friend's attention to British Telecom, which has recently adopted a scheme whereby if it does not provide a service, its customers can claim a refund. In effect, that is a penalty fare in the opposite direction. Should that not apply to British Rail management? Should it not be in the Bill? Should not the sponsor take the Bill back? If British Rail wants to impose penalty fares on people who avoid buying tickets, the management should pay a penalty to the customer when it is wrong.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend's argument boils down to the idea that we should give further consideration to the Bill because he suggests an amendment to reverse the concept of penalty fares so that if trains do not arrive a bonus voucher should be given to passengers. That is a very good idea. However, having considered the pros and cons of whether we should further examine the Bill, and bearing in mind my hon. Friend's ingenious proposal, I believe that it may be better if the promoter took the Bill back and suggested that my hon. Friend's ideas would be useful in highlighting the unfair burden which the Bill proposes for passengers. On those grounds, I would have reservations about giving the Bill further consideration.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made another good point about the negative penalty fare that could be imposed upon management. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) take that idea on board? A few years ago, I travelled on the TGV between Paris and Lyon. A striking steward blocked the line, and the train had to be diverted. When that happened, the conductor came around handing the equivalent of a fiver back to everybody on the train because of the delay. Such things can be done. Penalty fares should be considered with that in mind.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing about penalty fares for management in the Bill. The Bill deals with penalty fares for passengers. The hon. Gentleman's remark would have been perfectly in order on Second Reading, but it is not in order in this debate. We must deal with the Bill as it is, as amended, whether it should be further considered and whether we should discuss the amendments.

8 pm

Mr. Cryer: On whether the Bill should be further considered, which is what we are debating—it is an important item—the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is outside the terms of the Bill, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as helpfully as always, have pointed out. That reinforces my belief that we should give the Bill further consideration. My hon. Friend's point about refunds to passengers on the TGV should be incorporated in the Bill so that we can give it proper consideration. The Bill is stunted. Unfortunately, no amendment has been tabled to cover that point. That demonstrates the advantages of discussing such issues and of several minds coming together.
Second Reading is some time away, and the Bill will go to a private Bill Committee which, as we know, is not like a Committee that deals with a public Bill where Bills are scrutinised by, perhaps, 20 or 30 hon. Members in Committees that are open to the public. Private Bill

Committees consist of a handful of people—say four or five—so we do not get the same sort of input as we do with public Bills.
Although I cannot discuss the details of the TGV experience, when the conductor handed out refunds. I believe that we should incorporate an amendment to balance the Bill so that passengers have some quid pro quo for the additional difficulties. We accept that the penalties should be imposed; the question is how. Additional penalties are being faced by passengers in difficult circumstances. Innocent people are harassed if they do not have a ticket. Additional powers will be given. M} hon. Friends argue that the Bill should not be given further consideration. British Rail is seeking these powers too early and without proper consideration. It should be able to take advantage of our debates, and, one would hope, reintroduce the Bill in a new form. Therefore, it might be better if we did not give the Bill further consideration at this stage.

Dr. Marek: I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had to say. He made some useful points that we should consider before deciding to consider the Bill. This Bill is better than the one that we had before us yesterday.

Mr. Cohen: It could not be worse.

Dr. Marek: There may be something in that.
There are mitigating circumstances in the Bill. By and large, there are no automatic barriers at British Rail stations—or, rather, I cannot remember whether there are any. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will contradict me if I am wrong. British Rail may want to introduce automatic barriers at some stage, and it may be possible to do so without further legislation—London Regional Transport was able to introduce automatic barriers without legislation—and most people would then consider this Bill as bad as the one that we considered yesterday.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend will know that I have strongly objected to automatic ticket barriers for several reasons, some of which I explained yesterday. I should be greatly concerned if, as my hon. Friend said, British Rail is considering such barriers. Has he heard any hint that that is the case? Many people have said that such barriers do not work and are a waste of money. The public deplore them. On behalf of the House, will my hon. Friend say to British Rail management, "No barriers"?

Dr. Marek: We do not want barriers on British Rail. I assure my hon. Friend that we do not need them. British Rail tickets now pass through London Regional Transport barriers. This matter is directly related to penalty fares, safety and whether the installation of barriers is a proper provision of service. Would barriers make British Rail—whether it is underground, as in Merseyside, or above ground, as in most other parts of the country—safer or less safe? That is the central question that we should address.
As I said, British Rail tickets now go through London Regional Transport barriers. If those tickets have a magnetic strip, they will open the gates. It is not inconceivable that, in three or four years, tickets may have an implanted code on the back, showing whether they are blue saver tickets, white saver tickets, first-class tickets, or single or return tickets. All sorts of information could be implanted on the back of a ticket. There may be proposals


for ticket collecting at King's Cross, Euston, Paddington, Waterloo and other major stations to be done by automatic ticket machines. I would not expect the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson), to have an answer to that at his fingertips, but the matter must be considered. I fear that, if that procedure is introduced, it will place this Bill on a par with the one that we considered yesterday.
I compliment the hon. Member for New Forest on being assiduous in his duty and, on more than one occasion, going to his advisers outside the House. Of course we cannot take any notice of them inside the House. I hope that he will reply to the debate before time runs out in a couple of hours. If he can do that, it would compare favourably with the performance of the sponsor of yesterday's Bill, who did not consult his advisers. Perhaps he knew all the answers anyway. He moved the closure of the debate to which he did not reply. This Bill is on a happier path than the Bill that we discussed last night.
Several amendments have been tabled. If we decide to consider the Bill, we will be able to consider them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South talked about the impact of one or two amendments. I thoroughly approve of the amendment to be moved by the Bill's promoters. If permission is given to go into a restricted area or not to have a current ticket, it should be given not by the person providing the service, but by the person "controlling". That is the word used in the amendment, which is extremely sensible and would enable the Bill to work that little bit better if the House decides to give it its blessing and send it on its way.
Unfortunately, my favourable comments cannot be directed towards the Minister's performance. He is writing and I hope that he is writing something suitable about the Bill and about the debate that has taken place so far. I hope that he will be able to respond positively, or even negatively, this evening. Whether or not he agrees with us is a different matter. What is important is that he should give a constructive response. Certainly, he did not do that yesterday and I would hate him to repeat his performance tonight. I think that he spoke for one minute—

Mr. Cohen: One minute.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend said that the Minister spoke for one minute.
In yesterday's debate, the level of fare evasion was raised, and it has already been raised tonight. That is another central theme in the Bill, and if we are to consider the Bill—

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I want to be entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that I am not the Bill's sponsor. I have already expressed the Government's general support for the Bill and I said that the matters raised during last night's debate were matters for the Bill's sponsor, not the Minister. The Minister had little to add on whether the Bill should be considered further.

Dr. Marek: I welcome that response, for which I am grateful. It may be that the point that I wish to raise this evening and which I raised last night will be answered. It

certainly was not answered yesterday. The Minister, perhaps quite rightly, did not answer it and the Bill's sponsor did not seek to speak.
I wish to take up the issue of the level of fare evasion. If the level is not great, it is hardly worth considering the Bill any further. Equally, if the level of evasion is such that considerable extra expenditure would be incurred in combating it and bringing it down to what the sponsor would deem an acceptable level, it would not make economic or any other sense for the promoters to pursue the Bill. The costs involved would exceed the likely return and it would not be worth our while to give further consideration to the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for New Forest will reply, and that when he does he will address this matter.
How were the figures showing the level of evasion arrived at? What sampling techniques were used? These questions must be answered so that the House is able to make a judgment. It was on this point that I criticised the Minister. I apologise if my criticism was wrongly directed and should have been aimed at the sponsor, whose duty it was to respond. The Minister said:
Both London Regional Transport and British Rail lose considerable amounts of money from people travelling on their services without having paid the correct fare or any fare at all"—[Official Report, 28 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 1057.] However, he did not amplify that statement.

Mr. Cohen: It is not just the amounts, and the proof of how they were arrived at, which we need to know before we can give consideration to the Bill; we also need to know the reasons for the evasion. The promoters' statement contains no attempt to consider the possible reasons for the amounts, let alone proof of whether they are correct. Does my hon. Friend consider that we should have received more information before considering the matter in a more detailed way?

Dr. Marek: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I was going to address this issue later in my remarks. There is a lack of information. The promoters' statement gives a background to the Bill and we have received the working party's reports. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has left his report here for the rest of us to consider. I should certainly like to see it at some stage, although I have a rough idea of what it contains.
We must consider whether the House is able to give a judgment on the Bill which is good enough for the average man in the street to rely on. At the end of the day, we are here to represent our constituents and the public who must be able to rely on us and to know that we have the information on which to base our judgment, and then be able to use our judgment in the most constructive way.
I shall return to the central issue of evasion. The Minister did not spend much time justifying the need for the Bill on the grounds of the amount of evasion. I hope that either the Minister or the hon. Member for New Forest will spend more time tonight giving us the statistics on which the Bill is founded.
Yesterday, I said that one problem of this form of Government was that it was oppositional, in that we face each other and have to try to score points off each other. It would be a great advantage to the country if, instead of doing that at the consideration stage of a private Bill, which is not a completely political measure—I can think of


other measures which are more political—the Minister could ask British Rail and London Regional Transport for the statistics. We must satisfy ourselves about the statistics before we support the Bill and ensure that there is nothing secret about them. I would have been delighted if the Minister had invited us or our agents to come to the Department of Transport, where we would be given every opportunity to see the figures. We would then have been able to exercise our judgment when we spoke in the House.
Unfortunately, the Minister did not take up my request, and did not even reply to it. It may be, as the Minister said, that I should have asked the sponsor of the Bill. It would be useful if the hon. Member for New Forest could persuade British Rail to open the books and show us the sampling techniques used, how the statistics were acquired, over how many days, on which lines and how accurate the estimate was. I think that it was estimated that £36 million was lost in revenue every year. That is a lot of money and if it is the correct estimate it shows that we have a society that we would not wish for. It would be far better for everyone to be honest and to get into the habit of being honest. One way of getting into that habit is to realise that if we are dishonest we are likely to be caught and will have to pay a penalty fare. Bearing that in mind, it would seem that we would all want to speed the Bill on its way. However, it is not as simple as that, because there are disadvantages to it.

Mr. Cohen: Advertisements put out regularly by British Rail refer to fare evaders getting a criminal record. Would someone who paid a penalty fare automatically gain such a record? Is there not a danger of information going awry, and would not the possibility of a court appearance be a more effective deterrent than on-the-spot penalties?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, but I am not sure that I am able to answer it with authority. A system of prosecution might be more effective, but I saw the penalty-fare system working on the excellent Tyne and Wear Metro when I was in Newcastle upon Tyne earlier this week, with spot checks being made on the trains. Although the system is called the Metro, the trains travel overground and the system, which is run by the local authority, is to all intents and purposes a railway system.
Perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt from Newcastle. The carriages of the Metro trains contained large notices saying that anyone caught by an inspector without having paid the proper fare would face a penalty of, I believe, £5 if the fare was paid within seven days and £10 if it was not. No doubt offenders could subsequently be prosecuted; they were certainly asked for their names and addresses. I have not enough experience to know whether the system works: perhaps the Minister knows, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who is an expert in such matters, may also be able to help.
There are ticket machines on the Tyne and Wear Metro, and passengers are, to an extent, honour bound to travel with a valid ticket. There is, of course, a limit to how far the system could be translated to British Rail. The maximum fare on the Tyne and Wear Metro is £1 or £2, and there are ample opportunities for the purchase of day tickets and, no doubt, tickets for a longer period. The fare structure on British Rail is a different matter: a single first-class ticket from Newcastle to London, for instance,

costs nearly £70, and a second-class ticket nearly £50. It is worth bearing in mind, however, that the penalty-fare system is working on the Tyne and Wear Metro.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South said that the working party had not consulted the railway unions. It is sad that those who control the service should have felt that they could decide on the best way of introducing a penalty-fare system without consulting those who would have to operate it. That is one of the faults of British industry in general—but I am sure that I should be ruled out of order if I dwelt on any other aspect of British industry. It is a pity that the consultative document did not benefit from the experience and active participation of employees. I should add that I speak as a Member sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen.
The difference between this Bill and the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill is that in the last month or so there has been some consultation—late in the day, but none the less welcome—between British Rail management and the unions. I have a copy of a letter written a few days ago to the general secretary of the NUR by the director of Network SouthEast. As it is not confidential, I may read extracts from it to help hon. Members make up their minds about the Bill. It shows that there has been an attempt at consultation, although it may be too little too late. Other matters, of course, are currently worrying the NUR and British Rail management—but I shall not stray on to that ground either.
If employees can be brought into the consultation—even at this late stage—if an undertaking can be given that the system will operate in a certain way, although there is no such undertaking in the Bill, and if in the end the NUR is satisfied, I am sure that it will say the same as us: "If the Bill cuts down on evasion and leads to a better society, we are for it."

Mr. Cohen: I am sure that the railwaymen would say that, but would they not also say that if they are to be responsible for the collection of penalty fares they will expect to be paid for that responsibility, and also that they do not want any redundancies? Is that, perhaps, one of the reasons why British Rail embarked on consultation so late in the day—because it would have to give a commitment on both counts? Does my hon. Friend think that that is why London Regional Transport and London Underground did not consult at all—because they are even meaner in those respects?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend may well be right; I do not know. I am not saying that I expect the hon. Member for New Forest to be able to answer such questions, but if he happens to know the answer it would be useful to hear it.
It may not be just management that is meaner. There is a paymaster whose representatives sit on the Conservative Benches. They may say that the 7 per cent. is not a magic figure that has come out of a hat, but has been arrived at independently by various bodies. Many hon. Members, however, believe the facts to be slightly different from those presented by the Government or in the faithful press, which renders whatever the Government may say as absolute truth. We are a little cleverer than that in the House.
I am placing the most favourable possible construction on recent events. If the consultation is successful, I shall be happy to withdraw even amendments that I feel, with good


reason, should be made. I shall do so later rather than now, because I hope that we shall consider the Bill and that in time I shall be able to speak to my amendments.
I must, however, get some points straight if the Bill is to be considered. Not only London Underground but British Rail has automatic ticket machines. We must consider the whole issue of the reliability of equipment provided in the past by British Rail and assess whether—should the Bill be passed and an activating order made by the Minister for certain lines—the automatic ticket machines that are to be installed will be maintained to the high degree promised by BR. If they fail to work, will maintenance staff be on hand within a few minutes, failing which will automatic "permission to travel" machines be on hand?

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will be aware of the number of occasions on the Underground and at other LRT facilities when machines display "No change given" signs. That often puts all the machines out of use, unless the traveller is prepared to pay well in excess of the fare for the journey. Frequently the offices at BR stations will not be open to enable the traveller to buy a ticket.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes an important point. LRT might say that the ticket office will always be open, and that might be the case. Unfortunately, however, one could find Murphy's law in operation, and at the very time when the machines break down, the official in the ticket office has three or four Americans and one or two Japanese visitors wishing to purchase tourist cards for the week, and the traveller knows that there will be no chance for perhaps 15 minutes of his obtaining a ticket. There are usually several ticket machines in operation in LRT locations. With BR, on the other hand—my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East will correct me if I am wrong—there will be only one machine at a station vending tickets automatically.
I appreciate that BR sets service standards. BR says that ticket offices must be open and that people should be able to buy tickets within a few minutes. Can we, using our judgment, say that British Rail will—if the Bill becomes law—service and maintain the machines to a standard which will ensure that any departure from total availability will be so rare that not I nor my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will have reason to complain?
I fear that LRT and BR would fail that test now. Certainly the Underground ticket machines would fail the test because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley pointed out, "Exact fare only" is a sign which the machines display all too frequently. That means that they have not been serviced properly in that they do not have sufficient change in them.

Mr. Cohen: The Government insist that the lowest tender for maintenance must be accepted. BR might find itself, in this privatised world, with a cowboy contractor servicing and maintaining its machines. In those circumstances, the automatic machines could not possibly be in operation for 99 per cent., let alone 100 per cent., of the time.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, even if it does not apply to BR's willingness to maintain

the ticket machines so that they are available all the time. If the machines are not working, the passenger who turns up at a station with only a few minutes to spare before his train is due to depart will face a dilemma. If the machine is not working and the authority to travel machine has not been installed or has run out of paper, he must consider whether to board the train and risk having to convince an authorised person—with an explanation that he must deliver within 10 or 20 days, as the Bill lays down—that he had no alternative, with the possibility of being landed with a penalty fare and, even worse, a criminal record.

Mr. Cohen: A person in that position might decide to jump on the train because he has a pressing appointment. With the cuts in service that are being made, there could be a long delay before his next train. That passenger may have the intention of paying at the other end. He may have no intention of evading the fare. That raises a whole new implication for the penalty fare concept because it implies an assumption on the part of the traveller to pay at the other end. Should that not be recognised in the Bill?

Dr. Marek: I tabled an amendment to that effect, but because it would have involved BR proving an intention it was not selected for debate. I was not surprised at that, because it is difficult to prove an intention. Usually such an issue has to be decided by the Court of Appeal. At the lower level with which we are concerned, the traveller is in a dilemma. He may be in a hurry—in the south-east people are, generally speaking, in more of a hurry than they are elsewhere—and he is faced with the awful decision whether or not to get on the train.
Let us not forget that with InterCity trains the guard will have an awful job trying to get through the whole train to check tickets. If one has jumped on to an InterCity train and is at the back end of a second class, or in a first class compartment—depending, of course, on which way through the train the guard is going—one may get away without paying any fare.
But suppose one has an authority-to-travel ticket or, even worse, no ticket and one must provide an explanation to an authorised person, the guard in the case I am citing. The job of the guard going through a crowded train to check tickets will be almost impossible. On occasions it is impossible already. I cannot imagine how, on crowded trains, that type of situation can be avoided.
Deadlock will occur if there are, say, half a dozen people with authority-to-travel tickets and other people explaining how there were numbers of people at the ticket office or that the automatic machine did not work, or that there was some emergency involving the staff, so that they simply got on the train. Some travellers might want blue saver return tickets, others might want executive tickets, while others might want tickets to proceed to the continent. I do not see how a guard, faced with his other duties, will be able to cope with all that ticket writing and explanation assessing.
How will these issues be addressed by BR on crowded InterCity services, let alone if there has been a breakdown at some starter stations where there have been a dozen or more people wanting tickets and they have been unable to obtain them before commencing their journeys?

Mr. Pike: Another problem with the Bill is the increasing use by British Rail of what it calls open stations. I believe that Preston station is to be made open. British Rail is gradually removing ticket barriers, opening up


shopping areas and encouraging people to use the refreshment facilities on the station. Will not such open stations encourage people to get on trains without tickets?

Dr. Marek: I cannot see that, although it is another difficult point. It is possible to have open stations. Germany has many open stations so that one can get on any train without a ticket. My hon Friend may view that with dismay, but within three or four minutes a guard comes along asking for a ticket. He is not left by himself—I have seen four guards on some of these trains, and they provide a proper service. However, if there are to be open stations—I am aghast by what my hon. Friend has just said—will the trains be properly staffed and serviced by British Rail employees? I need a lot of convincing.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend spoke about the various types of ticket and 1 can see the problems involved in that. Did my hon. Friend see the article by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the deputy leader of the Opposition, in The Guardian last weekend'? My right hon. Friend asked for toast and was told by a British Rail employee, "Sorry, sir, you are not a first-class passenger." My right hon. Friend replied, "Actually I am." The British Rail employee said, "You still can't have toast because you are not having the full breakfast."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to see what toast and breakfast have to do with whether the House should consider the Bill.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend's example shows the inability of the privatised service to provide proper facilities for passengers. Trusthouse Forte now runs the catering service, so questions about that should be addressed to the Minister.
The employees of British Rail must be sure about the ticket machines. Will they be properly serviced? Will they be functioning? Will "permission to travel" machines issue tickets and will tickets, which should be available all the time, be unavailable not less than 0.0001 per cent. of the working year? If we could be satisfied of that, that would overcome the first of the 12 problems that we have to consider before we decide whether to consider the Bill.
Automatic ticket machines are often inoperative. This must happen, because nobody can expect a 100 per cent. operating rate for any ticket machine or "permission to travel" machine or even 100 per cent. availability of booking staff behind the booking window, because emergencies happen. It would be wrong to insist that British Rail has a standard of 100 per cent., although it must have a standard close to that. If something goes wrong, will booking staff be available immediately to be drafted in to where the problem is, to keep the sale of tickets going? It is vital that the answer to that is yes, because if it were not, that would raise many problems and many people would have to make decisions about whether to travel without valid tickets and be liable to penalty fares, or miss their train.
I should like the hon. Member for New Forest to say something about that. What will happen if an emergency affects the availability of booking hall staff'? Many stations have only one person in the booking office. My station of Wrexham has only one little window and usually only one person is there issuing tickets. That employee might not he able to get to the office, perhaps for a silly reason such as

oversleeping—we have all done that. What will happen if he does not open the booking hall and the "permission to travel" machine happens to jam at the same time?
8.45 pm
The hon. Member for New Forest must assure me that such problems will occur only 0.0001 per cent. of the time, and justify that record. One needs a bit more than just an assurance. Too often British Rail has said that it will do certain things, or the Secretary of State for Transport has said that he is setting passenger service standards for British Rail, but years go by and they are not achieved. That is not necessarily because British Rail does not want to achieve them, but it is under the constraints of finance. Therefore, we need a commitment that booking staff will be drafted in and people will not have to make such difficult decisions.
The phrase "authorised person" is dotted about throughout the Bill and it would be interesting to know who an authorised person is. Is it a guard, a booking clerk, an inspector, or anybody else working on the railway? All could be an authorised person, but they will need extra training. When staff have to deal with the public, training is important, and British Rail must realise that. The authorised person must have on-the-job training to help him to decide how to handle these issues. British Rail will give him authority, but training is another important aspect.
Let us take the example of a person waiting, with only three or four minutes left before his train is due and the ticket machine is not working and the booking clerk is not available. That person has to decide whether to risk a penalty fare. However, if an authorised person were available he could make the decision. He could say, "Hang on, you've got three minutes before the train goes and the booking clerk will be back in one minute and will be able to give you a ticket, and I shall make sure that the train does not go." On the other hand, the authorised person should also have the power and authority to say, "Four or five people are waiting and the platform is over the bridge and 50 yards down the track so you'd better go now because I can't guarantee that you'll get a ticket. However, you've been here for a few minutes and in those circumstances, it is reasonable to say that it is our failure and I give you authorisation to go. I will make sure that the authorisation I've given is logged properly at the station so that if you are asked by another authorised person why you do not have a 'permission to travel ticket' you can make the relevant statement and it will be backed up by the log that I shall make and the permission that I am giving you." If the Bill is passed an amendment to allow that will have to be made to it.
Not every railway employee is trained to deal with members of the public. Some stations have only a few railway employees and they have to deal with many things. I should like an assurance from the hon. Member for New Forest that on-the-job training will be given so that staff are taught how to handle the public and to minimise aggravating circumstances.
It is also important that a different type of on-the-job training is given to authorised persons who control tickets on trains or in restricted areas to make sure that they know how to minimise violence should a person be found not to be travelling with valid authority to travel. It is not unknown for people who have had too much to drink to be on certain trains on certain lines at certain times of the


week. Guards need training to cope with such people. If any British Rail employee thinks that there is even a remote risk of violence as a result of asking for a ticket, I would advise that employee not to ask for the ticket but to leave it to the British Transport police to sort out the matter at the next station
If a guard asks a person for his authority to travel, if it is not produced and if the guard has to levy a penalty fare, he must be trained on the best way to do it. I think that the guards should work in pairs rather than singly. I am not sure that I am competent at this stage of the debate to judge the issue. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for New Forest could tell us something about that.
If the Bill goes through and penalty fares are to be charged, there should be radio communication between guards or authorised persons who have to exact the penalty fares. There will be a real threat to British Rail employees. There should be a panic button so that British Rail employees would be assured that the train would stop at the next station where there would be an adequate complement of British Transport police to deal with trouble. I am not saying that we are a violent nation and that there will be trouble all the time, but if people who may be violent, perhaps because of alcohol addiction, do not have at the back of their minds the knowledge that they will be caught, put in a cell overnight and perhaps charged, they will take liberties with British Rail staff. No one wants that to happen. An important way of ensuring that it does not happen is to have radio-controlled equipment, panic buttons and a proper complement of British Transport police available to go to stations where trouble may occur. If publicity were given to such incidents, the number would decline.
At this stage I need to have confidence that British Rail would have the equipment and the people available. I do not have that confidence. We need more than an assurance. We need to know the detailed plans that British Rail has for the employment of extra British Transport police, for on-the-job training and for radios and panic buttons to be provided. I welcome the fact that such equipment is being introduced, but more detail is needed.
Wages and salaries are also important. I am not referring to the 7 per cent. pay dispute, but if staff are to be given extra duties they will expect to be remunerated accordingly. I am not asking staff to hold British Rail or the travelling public to ransom by saying that they will not operate the penalty fare scheme unless they get an astronomical amount for doing so. The staff are not asking for that, but they are asking for a little more simply because the job will result in more hassle since people do not like paying penalty fares.
Staff will have to do more on trains in checking tickets and authorities to travel, and in issuing tickets if passengers have a valid explanation. Depending on which side of the bed people get out of in the morning, they are more likely to argue the toss. That will put an extra burden on staff. I shall not dwell too long on the need for extra remuneration. No doubt the hon. Member for New Forest cannot say that everything has been agreed, but I hope that he will go back to British Rail management to point out that that is another central issue which has to be solved. The staff must have confidence that if the Bill becomes an

Act they will get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. No one can ask for more. That is all that the railway employees are asking for.
The next point has already been partly covered. I do not want to delay the House too long, but authorised persons should be conversant with the full range of operating duties. As time goes on there are fewer and fewer employees on British Rail. Because of that, the job that any person has to do multiplies. Any person on a station will have to understand and cope with the new scheme. This fits in with the requirement for on-the-job training. I do not want to repeat what I have said, but British Rail staff will have to be conversant with many more things.
A person who works on the platform of a station may not know all the intricacies of tickets; he may not know whether a ticket machine has broken down or why the booking office is not manned. The ticket office is not always near the gate to the area where a person will be liable to a penalty fare if he is found without valid authority to travel. A lot of education and training will be necessary. I hope that British Rail will make sure that its staff know exactly what they are doing.
We need more British Transport police. I suspect that over the years the number of British Transport police has been reduced. It is only recently that the number has increased. The number of British Transport police in Holyhead has been cut, yet those men serve the line all the way to Crewe. That cannot be right. The certainty or the near-certainty of transgressors being caught—those who are anti-social, violent or who cheat—is the best deterrent. I should like to have some assurances from the hon. Member for New Forest that British Rail takes that matter seriously.

Mr. Cohen: This is an important point. The public's perception of safety and fare evasion is bad. Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Transport police undertook a survey at Fenchurch street of the public's perception of those matters, but that has been covered up. The British Rail board has refused to publish that information. Is not that a scandal? Unless that information comes out into the open, such matters cannot be dealt with, and we will not be able to take the necessary steps, such as having more police, to make sure that the system is safer. That has repercussions for the Bill. If the British Rail board is so secretive on such an important matter, how do we know that its figures and its rationale are right in relation to penalty fares?

9 pm

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. I criticised the Government earlier for not being open about their statistics, and British Rail falls into the same category. There is nothing to hide. The British travelling public are not second-class passengers. British voters are not second-class citizens until the day comes to vote. They should be treated with respect and given the information. There should be nothing secret. The hon. Member for New Forest has heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton has said. I hope that such information will be released in the interests of better discussion and a better judgment of the Bill.
Another matter that should be in the Bill but is not is a provision for the review of penalties for fare evasion. I am no expert on Home Office matters, but violent members of the public who assault someone often seem to


receive only a minor penalty. In contrast, a person who fraudulently fiddles I million from the City of London usually gets off and goes to Majorca or the Bahamas. I had better not insult any country, so I withdraw those names. Some—not any of us—may say, "If you can get away with it, good luck to you." We should try to inculcate into people the belief that they should be social and not try to get away with it.
Extra staff would mean a greater certainty of detection. But it is no good if, at the end of the day, those who are caught only get a scolding from the judge or magistrate who says, "Naughty lad, go away and don't come back again." They will know that they can do the same again with impunity. Such a sentence does not deter a certain type of person. It may be that I am wrong about that. I shall take advice to see whether anybody has any experience of that, but it will he useful to consider that when we debate the amendments.
Another important matter is publicity. Many members of the public will not know about the Bill, despite our having considered it in Committee and its having passed all its stages in the House, perhaps leaving this Chamber with one small amendment to go to the other place.
The Bill says something about notices being prominently displayed. I should like an assurance that such notices will not only be displayed and be visible to the public but be comprehensible. In the past, private railway companies and even British Rail were very good at producing notices packed with small print about rules and regulations affecting people intending to travel on the railway, and nobody ever read them. Nevertheless, if anyone transgressed, the rules and regulations were pointed out—but by then it was too late, because ignorance is no defence in law.
If the Bill is to make progress, it must provide for such notices to be easily understood not only by the public at large but by those who are not as conversant with reading as others, or the traveller in a hurry who only has time to glance at the information once or twice. The promoters of the Bill should explain what types of notices will be produced, how many will be displayed, and where, so that we may be convinced that no one can truthfully say, "I did not know the rules. I did not see any notice. I am innocent. How dare you ask me for a penalty fare." I can imagine such arguments being made, but we should try to avoid that likelihood. The promoters should say something about the publicity that will be given at every station to which an activating order will apply.
I suggest to the promoters that any person convicted of assault should be banned from travelling on the railways for five years or some other appropriate period. Such a provision might cut down the number of assaults, particularly if convictions are given widespread publicity. If that is done, I suspect that we shall have a better Bill, a better railway system, and a better society.
I turn to the positive aspects of the Bill, and quote from a letter from Mr. Chris Green, director of Network SouthEast, to Mr. Jimmy Knapp, general secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen:
As you may know, this Bill comes up for consideration in the House of Commons on Thursday evening this week, 29 June. The Bill was reported from the Unopposed Bills Committee on 19 April with a few minor amendments to the drafting, following points made earlier in the Commons debate.

Dr. Marek has tabled a number of further amendments to the Bill, with the likely effect of delaying or blocking its progress, or disabling its provisions.
I certainly do not wish to do that. I hope that I have made my position clear.
Although we may not have time tonight to consider the Bill, I hope that my remarks will be taken seriously. As we all know, private Bills can be considered at 2.30 pm in the afternoon very expeditiously. I hope that my points will be satisfactorily dealt with, so that British Rail's employees will not be confronted by any problems. If so, I shall do my utmost to ensure that the Bill gets a fair wind, even if it cannot be entirely dealt with tonight.
The letter continues:
I recognise that this reflects the concerns of your Union about the possible implications for the legislation on members engaged in revenue protection work.
That is right, but I have tabled amendments because I believe that they should be made. The letter then says:
We have had earlier discussions on the Network SouthEast strategy for revenue protection, in which Penalty Fares form an essential part, and I regret that it has not, in present circumstances, been possible to resume or conclude such discussions, but it would be our intention to do so as soon as the climate is favourable.
I welcome unreservedly that statement. It is generous. All hon. Members want the Bill to become law. Nobody should be able to evade paying the proper fare. Mr. Chris Green then says:
I should like to reemphasise the purpose of the legislation as we see it. The aims are i) to recover a significant proportion of the revenue currently lost through fare evasion for lack of a proper ticketing discipline.
If that is one of the purposes of the Bill, that is right. We ought to be told how much money is being lost, whether the estimates we have heard about tonight are accurate and whether there will be a proper ticketing discipline. Many of the points that both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South have made are directed at that point. However, to put it bluntly, can we trust British Rail to do it properly, if the Bill becomes law? The letter continues:
ii) to undertake ticket checks in a more effective manner and one that allows customer service and access to stations to be improved.
The word "effective" can hide many evils. The word means different things to different people. The Government would think it effective to close down the whole railway system and spend no public money on it at all. That is one example of an effective policy from the Government's point of view.
Ticket checks have to be made properly. I have drawn attention to the problems that ticket collectors will have to cope with on crowded InterCity trains. Ticket collectors may have a multiplicity of jobs to do, simply because tickets are not available at certain stations. What will be done to make ticket checks effective? I understand the spirit of the letter, but I need to be convinced that action will follow if the Bill becomes law. Ticket checks must also be in a manner
that allows customer service and access to stations to be improved.
The same comments apply to that statement. I understand the spirit that lies behind it, but does it mean that customers will suffer no traumatic experiences at barriers or with guards when they try to explain why they could not obtain a ticket for their journey? If I could be convinced of that, it would remove one of the important mental obstacles that I have to the Bill. The letter continues:


iii) to create conditions in which ticket examining staff have a realistic and more rewarding task, and with their security improved.
Again I agree with the spirit that lies behind that statement. Everybody wants the morale of British Rail staff to be high, but it is necessary for the staff to have a fair wage if their morale is to be high. That is a basic necessity. To improve their morale, an agreement has to be reached under which British Rail staff feel that they will receive the right remuneration for the additional jobs that they will have to do.
Of course, conditions will be created whereby ticket examining staff will have a realistic and more rewarding task but it must not be a more harassed and harrowing task in which they are liable to be assaulted. That means that those possibilities must not be in the forefront of the minds of those staff when they check tickets or permissions to travel. We need to be satisfied about that.
9.15 pm
I absolutely agree with what the director of Network SouthEast said in his letter, but we need to put a bit of flesh on the bones. The letter continued:
You will know that we are already embarking on a substantial investment in improved ticketing facilities. We are also giving a great deal of thought to the staffing aspects of revenue protection, particularly in terms of staff training.
That is an important point which I have mentioned, and I am extremely pleased that it is included in the letter.
The letter continued:
Staffing levels and remuneration will also be an important matter for further consideration prior to implementation of any Penalty Fares scheme. We also take most seriously the problem of staff security. It is accepted that there are conditions in which it is undesirable for ticket examining staff to work on their own. Penalty fares, by operating on a 'spot check' basis for shorter journeys (and it is only these journeys to which Penalty Fares in effect apply), will allow us to organise our ticket examiners in teams.
That is absolutely vital. I tabled an amendment providing that penalty fares can be levied only by an authorised person in the presence of another authorised person. If ticket examiners are to be organised in teams, I shall be very happy to accept that undertaking and, subject to what the hon. Member for New Forest says, I shall withdraw my amendment forthwith on that assurance.
The letter went on:
This will enhance both their effectiveness"—
that is the ticket examiners—
and their own security. There is an opportunity here to improve on the present arrangements in this respect, and it is one that will be lost if the Penalty Fares Bill were to fail.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton will see any other intention in the letter, and I hope that he will give it careful consideration, but, as far as I can see, there is an entirely laudable intention to carry out the aims set out in the letter.

Mr. Cohen: Many of the elements in that letter are laudable, particularly the suggestion that ticket examiners should work in teams because of the risks involved. After yesterday's debate when an assurance that we had been given earlier was suddenly limited so that only women in prams could go through the manual gate, when previously we had been assured that anybody would have the freedom to choose, I am worried that we will get an assurance from the sponsor of the Bill that what is in the letter stands, and

there will be teams of collectors, but later that suggestion will be thrown out the window and become worthless and staff will have to work alone in dangerous circumstances.

Dr. Marek: I agree with my hon. Friend. I very much hope that the attitude taken by the promoters of the LRT Bill is not the same as that taken by British Rail on this Bill. I have no letter or copy of a letter, and I do not think that any other hon. Member received an equivalent letter from London Regional Transport. I understand that no consultation took place between London Regional Transport and its employees, through the unions that represent them. But some consultation has taken place on this Bill. I shall finish discussing the letter and then I shall conclude my remarks as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
The letter continues:
We appreciate that there are a number of practical matters to be resolved with staff before any Penalty Fares scheme can be introduced, but the concept is one that is, we believe, in interests of the staff, our customers and the industry. This is a view supported by the users groups.
This may be a slight question, but it would be useful if the hon. Member for New Forest could tell us which users' groups support this scheme and whether they have caveats about any aspects of it. That will probably help the House.
The last paragraph of the letter says:
In summary, I believe Penalty Fares legislation will enable us to recover significant revenue which would otherwise be lost, to improve security for both customers and staff, and potentially offer more rewarding work. We would wish to arrange formal consultation as soon as we are able, but in the meantime I believe the possible failure of the current legislation would present a significant lost opportunity both for the industry and its staff.
Under ideal conditions, I should like to see a Bill on penalty fares introduced, but at this stage there are great hurdles to be overcome before that could be done.
Although I may have sounded a bit optimistic in the past 10 minutes, I will now bring myself down to reality. The omens are not good. Although consultation took place, it did not take place when the original consultation document was drawn up. In other areas, consultation between British Rail and its staff is perfunctory. The system of consultation between British Rail and its staff was good in the past, but it has not been used recently by British Rail management. That has been the problem. It is a great pity that the employees were not brought into the consultation from its inception so that a proper Bill could have been fashioned. After all, it is the employees who will have to operate the system and understand it. They could forewarn management of any problems.
I have already referred to the other omens that are not so good, so I shall mention them only briefly now. British Rail has much to do to convince me that it will maintain the machines properly and that the authority-to-travel machines will always be working. It has much to do to convince me that there will always be someone in the booking office and that people will always be able to buy tickets. All that requires money. In the past 10 years, finance has always been in short supply because the Government do not believe in spending money on public services. British Rail is an agent of the Government in that respect.
As a legislature, we are debating whether to give consideration to the Bill, so British Rail has a different duty. It can say that it cannot give such assurances because it has to cut down on the maintenance of machines,


escalators and other areas. If it does that, the outlook will be extremely bleak. I hope that British Rail will say that it wants the Bill because it believes that the gains in terms of lower fare evasion would be worth the running costs of having proper machines in order, making arrangements for them to be properly maintained and ensuring that booking clerks were in place. British Rail could say to us, who are the legislature, that it guarantees that maintenance will be tip-top and that tickets will be available at all stations. I hope that British Rail will explain the parameters of the scheme and the way in which it will set about introducing it. It is no good British Rail saying merely that it will introduce the scheme and hope that we will be satisfied. Previous experiences have always led to disappointment. British Rail needs to say how it will carry out the scheme and what resources it will spend on the system to ensure that it will be carried out properly.
British Rail must ensure that staff have high morale, which means that they must have a fair day's pay for a fair day's work in the operation of the system. I want to be satisfied on that point. We cannot negotiate the matter here, because it is the wrong place, but I want to be satisfied on that before the Bill receives its Third Reading. There must be adequate safeguards for staff and the number of assaults should decrease. Enough equipment should be supplied and the necessary action must be taken to reduce the number of assaults.
I hope that the hon. Member for New Forest understands the apprehension that I and others feel. We would basically like the Bill if all the conditions were right. I am a little pessimistic about achieving that and I wait with interest to hear the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I have listened with interest to hon. Members' speeches.
I remind the House that the Bill has been before Parliament for more than 18 months. It had an unopposed Second Reading in the other place on 2 March 1988. No petitions were deposited against it in the House of Commons and on 6 February this year it was given its Second Reading in this place. The Bill, as amended, was reported from the Unopposed Bills Committee on 19 April. It has the support of the Department of Transport. As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) pointed out from a letter that he read out, consultations are taking place with the general secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen. The Bill is not new. It has been discussed over a long period. At its heart lies this simple question: do fare-paying passengers want to pay for those who cheat and go without tickets? That question must be resolved.
The hon. Member for Wrexham pointed out in the early part of his remarks that he welcomed the idea that the Bill should be considered, but he was more realistic in his closing remarks when he pointed out that that consideration would not take place this evening. I have a nasty feeling that, regardless of what I say, that will not happen.
Two options are available. One is that British Rail should collect the correct fare from fare-paying passengers. The other is that it should institute criminal proceedings against those who try to avoid payment. Those proceedings can be brought, as was made clear on Second Reading, under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 and the attendant section 67 of the Transport Act 1962. The purpose of the Bill is to move away from those cumbersome criminal proceedings towards a penalty fare

scheme which can be much quicker and avoid the time-wasting and costs of pursuing matters through the courts.
The questions which were posed tonight on the extent of fare avoidance were dealt with in detail on Second Reading in February. I remind the House of the skeleton of those figures. I corrected the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is not in his place now, and said that the figures for Network SouthEast alone were estimated at £36 million. There is probably a short fall of about £50 million over the whole railway network. As has been shown, much of the avoidance takes place over comparatively short journeys. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) pointed out that my constituency of New Forest comes within the scope of Network SouthEast. I assure him that my honest constituents are only too delighted to see action being taken against those who ride for nothing on the railway system.

Mr. Snape: Were the enormously inflated figures that the hon. Gentleman has just provided supplied to him by British Rail? If so, has it supplied him with the evidence to reinforce them?

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: The figures were givers to me by British Rail. May I carry the figures a little further before answering the hon. Gentleman's question? We may be talking about annual fare evasion on 20 million journeys. We are discussing short journeys, for which I have given a global figure for evasion of £50 million. Hon. Members have asked how those figures are calculated. On instruction from British Rail, inspectors take part in regular sampling. That procedure is statistically sound, but I entirely recognise the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that the figures are not detailed and therefore cannot be absolutely correct. Inevitably, they are round figures, but they are causing sufficient concern for British Rail's management to believe that action must be taken.

Mr. Cohen: What evidence has the hon. Gentleman or British Rail to show that this fraudulent behaviour occurs on short journeys? Often when people get to their destination they say, "I got on at the previous stop." That would imply longer journeys. Indeed, the huge figure for fare evasion would imply longer journeys. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's stout defence of the honesty of his constituents, but the implication of his remarks is that they are dishonest.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman correctly asks how we know that evasion takes place on short journeys. Longer journeys allow more time for ticket inspection, and the trains used have corridor facilities. I well remember when I had the privilege of representing the constituency of Lewisham, West from 1964 to 1966. At that time, trains consisted of single units with no connecting corridors, so obviously there was difficulty in inspecting tickets on the train.
Over the past 12 months, there have been between 3,000 and 4,000 prosecutions for fare evasion under the 1962 Act. We are dealing with a considerable problem, but the many court cases that are necessary to deal with those prosecutions, with all the work that is required to bring them to a conclusion, could be avoided by the penalty fares scheme.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman referred to "statistically sound" figures. Without wishing to impugn his straightforwardness in putting forward these matters, will he accept that those "statistically sound" figures perhaps were prepared by people within British Rail whose track record for preparing statistics is not the best? I am thinking of those who prepared the statistics for the estimated cost of repairing the Ribblehead viaduct on the Settle-Carlisle line, or those who prepared the figures that British Rail used to justify branch line closures in the 1960s and 1970s. Is it not a fact that all too often British Rail provides figures that are mainly invented and designed only to reinforce its somewhat specious case?

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's comments with interest. We are discussing one of the last of the great nationalised industries. An outside spectator might be concerned that the industry has been given a rough evening of criticism and comment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's comments are not true. The management of British Rail is doing a good job in difficult circumstances and it is now providing an excellent service for the travelling public. However, there is always room for improvement.
I want now to consider some of the points raised by the hon. Members for Wrexham and for Bradford, South. Several of those points revolved around concerns about the facilities which will be provided to ensure that the scheme works effectively. I want to make it perfectly clear that the passage of this Bill into law will not automatically bring the scheme into operation. The scheme must be activated and British Rail has made it clear that no such activation would be requested until it was totally convinced that the right equipment and the right publicity had been provided to ensure that the travelling public understood the scheme and that the problems that have been referred to of the difficulty in obtaining tickets had been dealt with.
As I explained on Second Reading, there will inevitably be occasions when the travelling public will have difficulty in obtaining tickets. That is why new automatic machines—of which 1,000 are on order—will be brought into play and why the new deferred ticket machine which will accept all coins from 5p to £1 will also be available on station concourses. Therefore, passengers who have not been able to obtain a full ticket, perhaps because of queues, will be absolved from blame if they possess a deferred payment ticket. They will be able to pay the remainder of the ticket price later.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman has just raised a very important point. When we debated this on Second Reading I understood that the deferred payment machine would not be activated unless it was impossible for passengers to buy tickets at the booking office. Is that wrong, or has there been a change since Second Reading?

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: Those machines will be available for use all the time.
Safeguards for passengers who are concerned about whether they are guilty of misdemeanours are contained in clause 4. Those are far-reaching safeguards. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East will recall that I read out a list of possible situations in which a passenger might find himself and it would be wrong of me to read it out again. However, it is important to point out that detailed training will be required of those who will be responsible

for carrying out the ticket checks. People checking tickets must listen to the passenger's explanation. They will not automatically say, "You're guilty." There may be reasons why the passenger had difficulty in obtaining a ticket and there may be a sensible explanation. If it is immediately obvious that British Rail is at fault at the ticket office—and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has just raised this point—that will be taken into consideration before a penalty notice is issued.
If a passenger's explanation is suspect, the authorised person will begin to press for details, including the passenger's address. If he is not satisfied, he or she will report the matter to the penalty fares office with a brief statement from the passenger—the passenger still has an opportunity to make his excuse available to the final arbiter. The name and address and other details of the passenger will be checked and only then will a penalty fare notice be issued. The passenger will then be told that he has 21 days to pay. That is another safeguard. Had we had time to consider the amendments, we would have considered one tabled by the hon. Member for Wrexham on that point. It is important to make it crystal clear that no penalty fare notice will be issued until it is found that the circumstances are correct. I would not want any prospective, law-abiding British Rail traveller to feel that he was risking being forced to pay a fine.

Mr. Pike: There is a fear that the genuine passenger who wants to pay the fare will be worried about incurring the penalty fare. The hon. Gentleman said that the scheme cannot be activated until British Rail is satisfied that the ticket machines and staffing systems are correct. Who must the board of British Rail satisfy? Must it satisfy the Secretary of State or the House? It is important to know that.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has made an important point. I direct his attention to clause 8(2), which states:
It shall be the duty of the Board to secure that the requirements of subsection (3) below with respect to warning notices are met in the case of a train service in relation to travel on which the penalty fare provisions have effect.
Clause 8(3) states:
A warning notice stating the amount of the penalty fare shall be posted at every station at which persons may start to travel on a train service, in such a position as to be readily visible to prospective passengers and shall (however expressed) indicate the circumstances (as provided in section 4(1) or, as the case may be, 5 of this Act) in which they may be liable to pay a penalty fare.
Until those provisions are satisfied, the Secretary of State will not activate the scheme. It is certain that British Rail will not enter into a penalty fare scheme unless the board is satisfied that its passengers—its customers; those who make its profit—are sure that the scheme will work. It is important to assure the travelling public that the scheme is designed to help them and to make sure that, when they buy a ticket, they do not pay for those who travel without one.
Reference has been made to the use of automatic gates. There was a danger of comparing British Rail's automatic gates with the barriers that were discussed in last night's debate about LRT. British Rail has no plans to install automatic gates at its stations. Obviously, at a small number of stations they are in joint operational ownership with the tube service, but, as a general rule, British Rail does not intend to install them.
British Rail is opting for the type of open station that is common on the continent of Europe, both east and west. Britain remains almost the only country in Europe, east or west, with the manned barriers to which we have become accustomed. There is no danger of the travelling public being trapped in the way that the hon. Member for Bradford, South suggested.
Unfortunately, we are not likely to complete our consideration of the Bill this evening. I recognise that Opposition Members have reservations about the consultation that has taken place. The letter from the board to the general secretary which the hon. Member for Wrexham read contains answers to many of the questions that have been posed during this debate. I should like to believe that, even if we cannot complete consideration of the Bill this evening, it will he possible to do so swiftly at some other time.
It is in the interests of British Rail and the travelling public to clear up what has frankly become a millstone around the financial management of the hoard. It really cannot be right for those who honestly purchase a ticket for a journey to have in the back of their mind the knowledge that many of those travelling with them are doing so for nothing, and that, as a result, fares will rise and the service will become less than adequate.
I urge the House to allow the Bill to proceed and for it to pass to the statute book as soon as possible.

Mr. Peter Snape: As usual, the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) for the able and courteous way in which he has dealt with the Bill and the other matters for which he is responsible. I would have risen before him had I realised that he was going to speak when he did. I make no complaint about that, but there are one or two points that I wish to make which have either not been dealt with or have been dealt with inadequately during this debate.
I do not wish to labour the point about statistics and how soundly based they may be, but I repeat, without criticising the principle of nationalised industries—which the hon. Member for New Forest artfully suggested I had done—that the invention of statistics to prove a case is not confined exclusively to the public sector. I am sure that he will agree with that. Many hon. Members, probably from both sides of the House, must be suspicious of the enormous sums which it is regularly alleged are being lost to British Rail through fare evasion.
The fact that fare evasion takes place is unchallengeable. Many hon. Members believe that British Rail assists the fraudulent traveller by its staffing policies and philosophies, particularly on many branch lines.
During last night's debate on London Regional Transport's equivalent of this measure, I put forward some fairly strong views about the management's attempts to justify its consistent policy of demanning the system to save money and please its political masters. The side effects of that demanning, which also apply to British Rail, actively assist those who wish to travel fraudulently. The Bill is supposed to provide a solution to the problem.
The West Midlands passenger transport authority is responsible for operating stopping trains throughout a fairly wide area, from Coventry in the south to Wolverhampton in the north, as well as the branch lines in between. The passenger transport authority was recently

concerned about fare evasion and fraudulent travel and, to demonstrate its concern, had considerable and protracted correspondence with British Rail. It frequently requested British Rail to do something about the large number of stations in that area with which, for various reasons—normally staff sickness and inability to provide cover—British Rail seemed unable to deal.
So concerned was the passenger transport authority that it provided specific funds to try to rectify the problem. The funds are to provide not only extra British Transport police officers to patrol each line in the area for which it is responsible, but a squad of seven additional travelling ticket inspectors. The authority has given me some statistics demonstrating British Rail's lack of action to combat fraudulent travel.
A letter from the office of councillor Phil Bateman, chairman of the West Midlands passenger transport authority, to British Rail quotes paragraph 3 of a report which, under the heading
Stations not staffed to schedule: 6 weeks 27 March to 7 May 1989",
lists 13 instances of unscheduled stations covering a total of 62 hours. It states:
West Midlands stations are open for approximately 40,000 hours over a 6-week period. All instances were due to staff sickness exceeding relief cover.
The worst cases mentioned are Northfield and Perry Barr, two surburban stations in the Birmingham area.
The study undertaken by British Rail into the amount of fraudulent travel in the region came up with an estimate—accepted by the passenger transport executive—of £550,000 per annum. That is a considerable sum and many of us would wish such a large amount of fraud to be stopped, but it is nothing like the multi-million pound estimate that has been presented as a justification for the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend has mentioned a number of stations in his patch in the west midlands. The Government have raised the spectre of privatisation out of spite, because they are trying to attack the trade unions. Would not a number of the stations to which my hon. Friend has referred be threatened with closure, and others suffer reduced services, under privatisation? Rural lines would also be affected, as would some of the less fashionable lines in London, such as the Gospel to Barking Oak line, which runs through my constituency and provides a valuable service. Would not privatisation have implications for penalty fares? Presumably it would mean higher prices and a private police force to collect the fares.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend paints a lurid scenario. I may have misheard him—I think that it is Gospel Oak to Barking rather than Barking Oak to Gospel—but, not being an expert on the North London line, I can only surmise that he may be correct.
The West Midlands passenger transport authority is paying a considerable amount to keep open the stations that I mentioned, because of the contribution that local rail services make both to the economic well-being of the west midlands and to alleviating road congestion in the region. If the PTA's contribution was withdrawn and responsibility for the stations became once more that of British Rail—as was the case before the Transport Act 1968—I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's scenario would become reality.
The hon. Member for New Forest will accept that I have cited some figures provided by British Rail and accepted on this occasion by those responsible for paying BR to operate those services. Although the sums are considerable, and we deplore the amount of fraud that takes place in the west midlands, they are not the multi-million pound sums that have been mentioned to justify the Bill.
Like their managerial counterparts in London Transport as was and London Underground Limited as it is now known, British Rail management has contributed towards the whole business of fare evasion. Indeed, when one reads the report entitled "Penalty Fares on Public Transport," to which reference has been made on numerous occasions in these debates, it is difficult to find much reference to BR.
The report, detailed though it is, was compiled almost exclusively as the result of an investigation into London Transport, although some reference is made in the report to other self-contained railways—if I might refer to them in that way—such as the Docklands light railway and the Tyne and Wear Metro. The only reference that I can find to BR to justify this amendment measure appears in paragraph 43, which says:
In addition
—that is in addition to the other railway routes to which I have referred, such as the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority routes, the South Yorkshire light railway and the Docklands light railway
British Rail are looking into the possibility of a penalty fares scheme. They are aware of the Working Group's deliberations and will be preparing their proposals in the light of this Report.
It is worrying to think that the people responsible for compiling that report evidently carried out little, if any, investigation into its impact on BR. Hon. Members who take an interest in these issues will concur with the belief of my hon. Friends and I that there is a big difference between the heavy rail system, as it is known, operated by BR and the small self-contained systems such as the Docklands light railway or the other proposed developments in Yorkshire and Manchester which, desirable though they may be, have not yet come to fruition.
The trouble with BR arises from the long-term and chronic problem of underinvestment at many railway stations. They are, because they were built a long time ago, often dingy, Victorian structures. Although creditable efforts have been made to tidy, clean up and modernise many of them, many of them remain in that dingy state.
The fact that the underlying theme of the Bill, like its London Transport counterpart, is designed to justify a further reduction in staff will mean that those dingy, dark, ill lit stations will be even less likely to be properly manned in the future. The onus and burden of proof for those who travel without tickets will fall particularly on those who decline to loiter for a moment longer than necessary on station platforms when it is necessary to purchase tickets.
Assurances were given by the hon. Member for New Forest that where a permit to travel or authority-to-travel ticket is purchased from a machine—

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 14.

Division No. 269]
[10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Lawrence, Ivan


Amess, David
Lee, John (Pendle)


Arbuthnot, James
Lightbown, David


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Lilley, Peter


Atkins, Robert
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Atkinson, David
Lord, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Bevan, David Gilroy
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Maclean, David


Boswell, Tim
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bowis, John
Mans, Keith


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Bright, Graham
Maude, Hon Francis


Buck, Sir Antony
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Butler, Chris
Mitchell, Sir David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Moate, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Moss, Malcolm


Carrington, Matthew
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Carttiss, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Chope, Christopher
Norris, Steve


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Devlin, Tim
Portillo, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Rattan, Keith


Dover, Den
Rhodes James, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Emery, Sir Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fallon, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Fishburn, John Dudley
Shaw, David (Dover)


Forth, Eric
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Franks, Cecil
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Freeman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shersby, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Sims, Roger


Gow, Ian
Stevens, Lewis


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Ground, Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


Hague, William
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Harris, David
Thorne, Neil


Hawkins, Christopher
Thurnham, Peter


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Tredinnick, David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Widdecombe, Ann


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Wood, Timothy


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)



Irvine, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Janman, Tim
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
and


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson.


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)



NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Randall, Stuart


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Snape, Peter


Haynes, Frank
Wareing, Robert N.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)



Mallon, Seamus
Tellers for the Noes:


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Peter L. Pike and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Harry Cohen.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered, put accordingly, and agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Bill to be further considered on Thursday 6 July.

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Representation of the People Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums charged on and paid out of that Fund under any other enactment, and
(b) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(i) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment, and
(ii) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act. —[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Mr. Harry Barnes: No price is too high for the extension of democracy. However, the Bill will mean the destruction of democracy. The poll tax has destroyed the British electorate and the Government are now prepared to spend money on replacing that electorate with expatriates who have few links with Britain. They should not spend money on the destruction of democracy. If the Government are intent on destroying democracy, they should do it on the cheap. They are not doing that in the Bill.
What is spent on electoral registration and its subsequent provisions in Britain? The explanatory and financial memorandum gives a cost of £1·72 per person for initial registration and 62p per person thereafter. What do such figures cover? Do they cover the issuing of registration forms that people are asked to complete? Will they be even simpler than my poll tax registration form, which has not yet been filled in and will not be filled in? Is there any money for advertising to encourage people to register?
The Government are very lax about encouraging people to register for electoral purposes. Last year they spent about £320,000—a little more than previously—from a total advertising budget of £100 million. It appears that the franchise is worth only 0·31 per cent. of the Government's advertising expenditure while other rubbish such as the poll tax leaflet, which costs a fortune, is dished out and used to destroy the democratic process rather than extend it.
Earlier, the Minister stated that as many as 2 million British citizens overseas could qualify for electoral registration under the provisions of the Representation of the People Bill, which has been given its Second Reading. To provide that facility will cost £3·5 million, which contrasts starkly with the £320,000 that the Government spend on stimulating the electorate in this country.
Is there any alternative to spending that £3·5 million on initial registration, and the additional £1 million required to maintain the electoral rolls of people who have little connection with this country? In many cases they have deserted this country for more than 25 years; others were taken out of this country as babes in arms but after 18 years they will qualify to vote in Britain. They will survive for at least seven years on the electoral register, probably voting in respect of constituencies that did not even exist when they were born and about which they know nothing.
No money should be spent by the Government in connection with the Representation of the People Bill. If they want to implement its provisions, they should do so off their own bat and not expect the public to pay for the destruction of democracy, of public services, and of the freedoms for which working-class people have struggled for so long.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 5.Stevens, Lewis

Division No. 270]
[10.17 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Amess, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Amos, Alan
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Arbuthnot, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Irvine, Michael


Ashby, David
Janman, Tim


Atkinson, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lawrence, Ivan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lee, John (Pendle)


Boswell, Tim
Lightbown, David


Bowis, John
Lilley, Peter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bright, Graham
Lord, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Butler, Chris
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Carrington, Matthew
Maclean, David


Carttiss, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Chope, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Mans, Keith


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Devlin, Tim
Maude, Hon Francis


Dover, Den
Mitchell, Sir David


Emery, Sir Peter
Moate, Roger


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Fishburn, John Dudley
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Forth, Eric
Neubert, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Freeman, Roger
Norris, Steve


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gill, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gow, Ian
Raffan, Keith


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Rhodes James, Robert


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Ground, Patrick
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hague, William
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Harris, David
Shersby, Michael


Hawkins, Christopher
Sims, Roger





Stevens, Lewis
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann


Summerson, Hugo
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Thorne, Neil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


NOES


Cohen, Harry



Nellist, Dave
Tellers for the Noes:


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Tony Banks.


Spearing, Nigel

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Representation of the People Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums charged on and paid out of that Fund under any other enactment, and
(b) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(i) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment, and
(ii) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act.

Orders of the Day — Water Bill [Money] (No. 3)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Water Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) sums required by a Minister of the Crown for making payments to persons in respect of obligations accepted by or imposed on them in relation to land in an area designated as a nitrate sensitive area; and
(b) sums required by the Secretary of State for making any payment in respect of an indemnity given under the Act for purposes connected with increases in the fluoride content of any water.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

SEA FISHERIES

That the draft Fisheries Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulation 1989, which were laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Elections)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn:—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I welcome the opportunity to introduce an Adjournment debate on the electoral affairs of Northern Ireland. It is especially relevant after today's debate, the district council elections in Northern Ireland and the European elections.
In any society it is essential that the Government and Members of Parliament keep the electoral process constantly under review. We should learn from the experience throughout the world where the majority of people do not have the right to exercise their franchise, and that right should be treasured by those of us who have a working electoral process. We must be careful, especially in a Northern Irish context, to nurture that right, rather than allow it to hang out on a limb. We all know that a solution to the problems there will not come from the bomb or the bullet, and those who advocate and use them, from Government legislation or from international arrangements. It will come through the franchise, with the people of the North of Ireland determining their future.
I believe that especially because, over the past 20 years, I have seen how the electoral process has been attacked. I have fought elections in the face of substantial boycotts, and when men with guns were standing outside the polling stations taking down the names of those who had the audacity to go in and vote. For that reason, we must be ever vigilant to ensure that we have a viable system which gives the best advantage to the people who are the most important in this matter—all those in each constituency who have the right to vote.
At present, the administrative thrust is towards making it more difficult, not easier, for people to exercise their franchise. I do not say that carpingly because I know that there is legislation to constrain everything, especially the electoral process, but I believe that an effort should be made to simplify the way in which the process operates.
A new system for the collection of registration forms has been successful, and I welcome that success. However, the system could be tidied up substantially, especially when one considers the returns and the way in which some of those appointed to handle them fell down on the job. There was a lack of returns in some areas and there was not the necessary follow-up to ensure that we had the substantial registration we all needed.
There is a tremendous gap in the postal voting system. We have inconsistencies time after time, and they derive especially from the pedantic and bureaucratic way in which the forms are framed. It is almost impossible for the ordinary person to fill in either the registration form or the postal vote application with any confidence as a result of their detailed technicalities. Those forms should be substantially simplified.
I found it disturbing in the previous two elections when the chief electoral officer ruled in effect that people with psychiatric illnesses could not vote by post. A worrying decision was made that, in effect, psychiatric illness was sufficient to disfranchise many people. We all know that psychiatric disorders are illnesses just as much as any physical illness. I am talking not about people who were confined either permanently or semi-permanently to psychiatric institutions, but about ordinary people in their

houses who were suffering from psychiatric ailments. They were prevented from voting by a decision of the chief electoral officer which I accept was based on legislation. But there must be discretion for him to deal with a substantial form of illness in the community. All Governments argue that the place for people with psychiatric illnesses is within the community where they can share the experiences and the care of the community. It seems a contradiction that they should be excluded from exercising their franchise on a legalistic point.
I apply the same argument to the way in which postal votes were allocated to the elderly. I know of two people, both 103 years old, who were denied postal votes because it was deemed that their postal vote application forms were not properly filled in. What reason had their doctor put down? Old age. I should have thought that in a society like ours a definition of old age would be sufficient to merit a postal vote for someone of 103 and to allow him or her the right to exercise the franchise. This nitpicking approach must stop.
Once postal votes are issued, responsibility should rest with the electoral office. At the moment, once the electoral office issues and hands the postal votes to the post office, its responsibility ends. I have seen at first hand the abuses that creep in. I have seen postmen who have been badgered into handing over postal votes—not one or two, but dozens—and been put into compromising situations with respect to their jobs. The Minister should closely consider a variation on the registered post theme that allows us to end that terrible abuse of the right to exercise the franchise. It is appalling that, in certain parts of the North of Ireland, some people are muscling—I use that word advisedly—elderly people out of their votes.
I am one of those who asked for, and welcomed, personal identification schemes. Given the unique circumstances in the North of Ireland, it was essential to end the wide-scale personation that took place. By and large, the process of identification has done just that, but there is much still to be desired. It is time that we considered this matter again. One of the easiest ways—probably the most effective—of improving the position would be for the Government, through the Department of Health and Social Services in the North of Ireland, to make a blanket issue of medical cards issued by the Central Services Agency. There is an anomaly in that the new medical card, which does not include a photograph or any means of identification, is acceptable, but the old medical card, which is not issued by the CSA, is not adequate. Elderly people are affected most because many do not have the CSA medical card. Such cards should be issued, and it should not be beyond the Department's ingenuity to ensure that forgeries cannot be made.
In at least the past two elections in the North of Ireland there were substantial forgeries of medical cards. They were so good that one could not tell the difference between the real card and the forgery. A doctor colleague of mine who was a candidate saw a medical card that referred to him as the doctor but had a different registration number. Because of anomalies, those who wish to cheat and to steal other people's votes can do so with the expertise at their disposal. Many people, especially the elderly, have been denied their votes because they have not yet been given the new medical cards. It is time that the Department made a blanket issue of new medical cards to everyone over 16. That would reduce the number of people who are disfranchised and cut the potential for abuse of the system.
As long as human nature remains human nature there will be personation at elections. We must ensure that it is cut to the barest minimum. Those who assume the responsibility to stop it in the polling stations—the polling agents appointed by the political parties—are placed in an invidious position. I found myself in that position some time ago. If one challenges someone whom one knows is involved in personation, that person has clear recourse to the law and a right to legal aid. It has become a cause celebre in parts of the North of Ireland, where people who were simply trying to defend the electoral process are having to pay court costs. The political parties and those representing them are loth to make challenges because they are most vulnerable once a challenge is made. We are all aware of how people use the legal system to the detriment of not only the person and political party involved but of the electoral process.
I ask the Minister to consider closely the siting of polling stations and to impress on those responsible that that is not an excuse for a security operation but an exercise of the franchise. During the latest election we had the rather deplorable position at a polling station at St. Joseph's Creggan in Derry, where Army personnel were photographing those who were going to vote. That is a contradiction of the way in which elections should be run. I ask the Minister to ensure that that is not repeated, because it turns polling into a security operation, which stops people voting. People have stopped voting in the North of Ireland in the past for many other reasons. I remember the days of 29 and 30 per cent. turnouts in my constituency. The figure has now increased to 80 per cent., which is healthy, but we must do all that we can to ensure that that healthy position remains.
Old people in urban and rural areas must travel substantial distances across hilly terrain to polling stations. During the previous two elections, several people said to me, "If you take me to the polling station I will vote, but for heaven's sake get me back because I cannot get over the hill." I ask that the town of Newry be considered specifically because it is ridiculous to force elderly people to walk substantial distances across hilly areas, which reduces the possibility of their exercising the franchise. The siting of polling stations is reviewed every four years. I suggest that that period be reduced to one year; it should be an ongoing process rather than a four-year span.
I ask the Minister for the provision of an electoral office in Newry and Armagh. It is the only constituency west of the Bann that does not have an electoral office. We deal with an efficient and excellent electoral office that is responsible for two constituencies. I wonder why Newry and Armagh is unique among constituencies west of the Bann.
I take the opportunity of paying tribute to those involved in the running of electoral affairs in the North of Ireland, especially deputy electoral officers who, in difficult circumstances, do an excellent job. During the past 20 years, I have never experienced anything other than courtesy and co-operation.
A pedantic approach is being adopted from the top, which in many ways is constraining the most effective

running of not only elections but the development of the electoral process. I ask the Minister to consider that problem.
Given the unique position in the North of Ireland, the Government should not adopt a passive role. They should adopt an active role because it is in the interests of the Government, the people and the political parties to nurture the tender plant in the North of Ireland and make it strong enough to do what it eventually will do—play a key role in solving our problems.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newry and Amargh (Mr. Mallon) on obtaining an opportunity for the House to debate electoral law in Northern Ireland. I join him in his tribute to those who have been responsible for organising the electoral process, which is never an easy one to carry through, particular in the circumstances of Northern Ireland.
I pay a personal tribute to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland. In ways that are not always evident to those of us who represent constituencies in Great Britain, it takes a particular kind of courage and dedication to perform that democratic role. I salute the hon. Gentleman and his parliamentary colleagues from Northern Ireland for their work in maintaining the democratic process, despite the many difficulties that have been placed in its way.
The hon. Gentleman has raised several detailed points. I hope that he will understand if I am unable to respond definitively and in detail to all of them now. I shall reflect on what he has said and I shall also read the Official Report. If I have not covered certain points this evening, I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman about them. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will give careful consideration to what he has said.
Some time before the recent elections, I had a meeting with the chief electoral officer because I wanted to hear at first hand from him about the arrangements being made for the forthcoming elections and to share with him the Government's concern that everything should be done to ensure that the elections were conducted in an orderly fashion without abuse or irregularity. I hope that, before too long, after he has had a chance to collect more information and analyse what has happened in the elections, I will have another opportunity to see him. I shall draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the major legislation governing the conduct of elections in Northern Ireland is contained in the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1962 and the Representation of the People Acts of 1983 and 1985. There are, of course, differences between Northern Ireland and Great Britain because of the different electoral systems. Despite the mechanical difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has described, it is necessary to have reasonably tightly drawn rules for anything relating to elections, for the obvious reason that, if the mechanics are not well ordered or categorically stated, there are considerable opportunities for abuse. The opportunities for abuse in Northern Ireland, where intimidation and other very undesirable practices have occurred over the years, are greatly increased. The hon. Gentleman referred to a pedantic approach, but it must be


set against the difficulties of not having a rather strict approach to the mechanics of the procedure. Nevertheless, I will reflect on his points.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned votes for the mentally disabled. Other hon. Members from Northern Ireland have raised that matter with me. Earlier this year, a number of people who were formerly registered as absent voters and mentally disabled were told that, in future, they would not be able to vote by post. The reason is that, throughout the country, mental disability is not and never has been a ground on which an elector becomes eligible for an absent vote.
It was formerly the case that those who applied for an absent vote on the ground of physical incapacity were not required to state the nature of the incapacity. When the chief electoral officer reviewed the list of absent votes earlier this year, he found that in a number of cases the ground for claiming an absent vote was not physical disability, but a mental one.
That is one of several points that the hon. Gentleman raised which apply equally to Great Britain and to which I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It would not be sensible for us to contemplate differences in matters of that kind between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. There is a logical reason behind that and we would not overturn it lightly. If there has been a change, it has been a change in the interpretation of the rules or a more rigid application of them rather than a change in the rules themselves. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to specified documents for polling purposes. I am aware that there were instances of forged medical cards which were used as documents for the purposes of personation during the elections. I understand that there has been at least one conviction and that someone elese is awaiting trial in another case.
As a result of what took place in the local elections, polling staff were given additional guidance on how to minimise the risks of forgeries before the European elections on 15 June. Although I have not yet received a final report, I gather that the precautions were successful in preventing a repetition of what happened earlier. Obviously that is a matter of great concern to us. We do not want people to circumvent the safeguards introduced in the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will consider whether there are other documents, or ways in which documents can be made less vulnerable to forgery, which might replace the existing medical card or be a variation of it. However, before we make any such changes, we would of course consult the political parties about any proposals for change. We have not yet reached that point. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and assure him that I am as concerned about it as he is.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to the location of polling stations. As he said, the chief electoral officer is required to prepare a scheme every four years. According to the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1962, he must
provide for the designation of such number of polling stations in such situations as to provide for all electors in each polling district such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances.
The chief electoral officer is also required to publish the scheme in draft. He can cause a local inquiry to be held on any question which arises from it and he must consider any

objections or proposals that are made in relation to the draft scheme before he confirms it, either with or without qualifications.
The Polling Stations Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1972 provide for relevant sections of the draft scheme to be made available for inspection at district council offices and at the chief electoral officer's office. The regulations provide that notice of the approved scheme should be published and say when and where it can be inspected. The chief electoral officer published his scheme this year on 16 February. I gather that to avoid confusion a virtually uniform polling station scheme operated during the recent local elections and in the European elections. Comments can be made about the scheme, but relatively few have been received. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about that. It is unlikely that it would be practicable to organise such a scheme at such frequent intervals as one year. However, I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The hon. Gentleman also discussed the suggestion that there should be an electoral office in Newry. He knows that his constituency is covered by the offices in Banbridge and Dungannon, I think satisfactorily. These are matters for the chief electoral officer to determine. He is bound to take account of convenience, efficiency and economy. There are at present 10 electoral offices throughout Northern Ireland covering 17 parliamentary constituencies, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is quite as unusual as he may have suggested.
The number and location of offices was reviewed when the number of parliamentary constituencies was increased some years ago. It was then agreed that the arrangements which now exist ought to enable the chief electoral officer to carry out his responsibilities effectively. I believe that that has generally been the case, but if there are grounds for suggesting otherwise I should be ready to take them up with him. Quite a number of constituencies are served by two or more electoral offices, and they are not necessarily within the constituency. It is not for me or members of the Government to deal with that.
I said at the beginning that I hope to see the chief electoral officer before too long to hear how technical and other matters proceeded during the recent elections. That will be a suitable occasion on which to draw his attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said tonight. I imagine that, like others, the hon. Gentleman would like an electoral office in his constituency, but before such a change could be considered one would have to make out a case that the present system is not working.
Most of what the hon. Gentleman suggested is, in practice, because of the responsibilities that Parliament has delegated to the chief electoral officer, a matter of detail for him rather than me, although, on behalf of the Government, I have responsibility for ensuring that the democratic process is properly conducted in Northern Ireland. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which he has raised these issues. He has done so in a topical way, and soon after two elections which, while they were not without their imperfections—that would be asking quite a lot in the context of Northern Ireland—were conducted in a way which mostly embodied the best of our democratic traditions.
I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of that democratic process, especially in


Northern Ireland, where that process, and that process alone, ought to determine the future of those whom the

hon. Gentleman represents and those for whom I and fellow Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office have responsibility on behalf of the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.